Pebble Mine: A Very Large Mine In a Very Bad Place
Posted June 29, 2010 in Curbing Pollution, Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
Last week I travelled to Tokyo to deliver 98,600 petitions to Mitsubishi Corporation, a significant partner in the disastrous Pebble Mine project. What I heard from Mitsubishi, as we hear frequently these days from the project’s main architect Anglo American, was a request to “wait and see” – that there is no mine plan and that there will be no mine if the residents of the Bristol Bay region don’t want one.
Putting aside the Pebble Partnership’s premise of the moment that it’s only reckless speculation to think they’re planning a massive open pit mine at Pebble – at least no plan worth worrying about – there can be no question that this would be a very large mine in a very bad place:
(1) We know that, according to latest estimates, Pebble Mine will generate some 10 billion tons of waste, laced w toxic byproducts of the mining process.
(2) We know that it will be located at the head of the pristine watershed that feeds Bristol Bay, near the largest fresh water lake in all of Alaska.
(3) We know that the Bristol Bay watershed sustains one of the most productive fisheries in the world – Alaska’s wild salmon fishery -- and that the fishery generates over $400 million each year.
(4) We know that large mines leak – during or after their operation – and that copper, in even minute increases above natural levels (several parts per billion), is toxic to salmon.
(5) We know that everything in the watershed depends on the health of the salmon – the people, the communities, and the wildlife.
(6) We know that the project is overwhelmingly opposed by the residents of the region, with latest surveys indicating over 80 percent opposition in the Bristol Bay and Lake Peninsula Boroughs.
We know, in short, that this project, because of its size and its location, would pose an unavoidable risk to the entire region and that the people who live there don’t want to run that risk.
What we already know is more than enough reason to worry. And it’s enough to reject the Pebble Partnership’s basic premise that they can build, operate, and maintain a mine safely at this location -- no matter how confident their assurances or how much profit their shareholders hope to make.
Some risks just aren’t worth taking, and the Pebble Mine is one of them.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Jon — Jun 29 2010 09:26 PM
I jst posted an article on my blog about Anglo-American Plc. Did you also know that Cynthia Carroll of Anglo is also on BP's Safety Compliance something or other...Hmmm.
http://greenalaska.blog.com/2010/06/29/dirty-diamonds-and-dead-salmon/
Ling — Jun 29 2010 09:31 PM
hey jon, is that ten billion, or TEN trillion tons of waste? my statements say the latter...
Ling Chi — Jun 29 2010 09:34 PM
great article, and thanks for all your good work, but according to my statistical data it's ten TRILLION. but you know, who's counting?
Mary Ann — Jul 1 2010 03:03 PM
First of all, you choose to live in Santa Monica, California not ALASKA!
So, I really wish you would keep your *petitions* and anti-development mentality to California issues and stay out of my State!
Alaskans are quite capable of deciding the future of the Pebble Mine. We have a very rigorous permitting process, but unlike California we believe in responsible development, our economy and our sustainable future.
Stay out of Alaska and Alaska issues and fix the mess California is in!
Joel Reynolds — Jul 1 2010 03:25 PM
Mary Ann – Thanks for your comment. Of course we do a lot of work in California and will continue. To be clear, NRDC is not anti-mining in general. We’re opposed to the Pebble Mine because it’s the kind of mining project that gives responsible mining a bad name.
That may also be the reason recent surveys in southwest Alaska show public opinion running overwhelmingly against the Pebble Mine in the region that would be most directly affected by it. A lot of people are worried about what Pebble will do to their communities. Even the jewelry industry, led by companies like Tiffany’s and Zale Corp., don’t want anything to do with Pebble and have publicly announced their opposition.
The petitions from our members and others are intended to support the local opposition from Alaskans, so many of whom have a different take on the Pebble Mine than you do.
Joel Reynolds
Susanne Wilson — Jul 2 2010 04:41 PM
My husband is a commercial fisherman in the Cook Inlet where already the red salmon runs are depleted. I can see the Inlet from my house and whales in my binoculars. Mary Ann, I appreciate your natural Alaskan independence but disagree with you that outsiders cannot take an important role in this situation. If Pebble Mine is built and the Bristol Bay salmon run lost (as it will be) it will affect not only local and regional residents. As you and I know commercial fishermen come to Bristol Bay from Outside (the Lower 48) and the fish are sold world-wide. I am in the process of learning more about the history of the Pebble Project and while I do see some groups of active opposition, I don't see a coordinated effort; we need as many committed folks as possible whether Alaskan or not.
Susanne Wilson — Jul 3 2010 03:05 PM
Quotes from Alaska Board of Fisheries letter to Alaska Speaker of the House and Senate President, dated Jan. 30, 2010: ". . no specific permitting plan has yet been proposed for the development and operation of the Pebble Mine . ."
and
"BOF respectfully requests that the Legislature conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the permitting protections and standards, including regulations and statutes, which provide safeguards against environmental damage",
Ronald W. Gumbs — Jul 6 2010 01:12 AM
Where can I get a copy of environmental impact statement for this project that makes no sense.
Ben Mohr — Jul 7 2010 11:54 AM
Ronald - There is not EIS available yet because there is no project description yet. The EBD hasn't even been completed yet.
This effort to stop Pebble is, in my opinion, quite premature and not a little misguided.
Further, the "facts" presented here are misrepresentations, at best.
For instance, Mr. Reynolds writes that the project "will be located at the head of the pristine watershed that feeds Bristol Bay".
How can one single project rest at the headwaters of Bristol Bay - a region that is fed by eight major rivers (and near innumerable tributaries) and encompasses a land area of 43,000 sq. miles?