Anglo American Makes Promises About Pebble Mine It Cannot Keep
Posted April 9, 2010 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
The British mining giant Anglo American is scheming with Canadian-based Northern Dynasty Minerals to develop one of the world’s largest copper and gold mines, the Pebble Mine, in the watershed above Alaska’s pristine Bristol Bay. The proposed mine threatens southwestern Alaska’s most abundant and sustainable resource – salmon – and the people and wildlife in the region that depend on the salmon for their survival. But don’t worry, Anglo American, a mining conglomerate with revenues of 20.9 billion that earned over 2.5 trillion dollars last year and the ambition to become the world’s leading mining company, has promised that the two-mile wide and 2,000-feet deep mine, the planned destruction of 60 miles of salmon spawning habitat, a deepwater industrial port in endangered beluga whale habitat, and the 10 billion tons of contaminated mining waste that must be held back in perpetuity by earthen dams in an earthquake zone won’t harm Alaska’s natural resources. Wait a second…just how dumb does Anglo American think we are?
On October 23, 2007, Cynthia Carroll, Anglo American’s CEO, said “We treasure [Alaska’s natural] resources and will use the best science and technology to ensure that they are protected.” Really, ensure? That sounds like a guarantee – but it’s a guarantee that neither Cynthia Carroll nor anyone involved with developing the proposed Pebble Mine can make. The fact is that large-scale pit mines carry an inherent risk and an unfortunate record of surface and groundwater contamination. A recent review of 25 large-scale mines in the U.S. found that 19 of them violated water-quality standards. Obviously, some violations can be worse than others, but sometimes it doesn’t take much to cause long-term destruction. For example, it turns out that copper is toxic to fish and even minute increases above natural levels (two to ten parts per billion) in water can harm their ability to return to their spawning streams. Did I mention that copper will be mined at the headwaters of Bristol Bay’s famous salmon runs? And let’s not forget the 10 billion tons of contaminated mining waste that will have to be held back by giant earthen dams in an earthquake zone…forever.
I wonder if Ms. Carroll or Anglo American made the same kind of guarantees to the communities in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Nevada, Ghana, and Ireland before pollutants from the company’s (or its affiliates’) operations escaped into the environment? Perhaps it’s the kind of promise that Anglo American’s joint venture vehicle for the Pebble Mine – the Pebble Partnership – made before it violated water-use permits it received from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources for its exploration of the proposed Pebble Mine site?
Of course, Anglo American and other companies don’t set out to violate laws and pollute our planet – at least I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt on those points – and they may sincerely believe the promises they make. But that does not mean we have to keep accepting guarantees that simply cannot be met. It’s a game we shouldn’t keep playing, especially when people’s livelihoods are on the line. There was a moving opinion piece in the Bristol Bay Times by Lydia Olympic, a Yupik/Sugpiaq from the Village of Igiugig, a small community located in southwestern Alaska near Lake Iliamna, which drains into Bristol Bay, and could be devastated by pollution from the mine. She said, “The large-scale mining could directly threaten the salmon that Alaska Native people have depended upon for thousands of years to sustain our culture. Anglo American, the company behind the project, says that the mine won't harm the fish. But, we know better. Salmon are very sensitive to change, and we do not want to be the experiment that sees if wild salmon and a massive open pit mine can co-exist. The risk is too high.” Lydia Olympic is right, with stakes this high, why should we unnecessarily experiment with people’s futures? Sometimes it’s okay if the risks are shared and everyone agrees to take the plunge, but that’s not the situation here – Ms. Carroll and the other executives from these mining companies will get paid regardless of what happens, especially if problems don’t occur for years to come. I don’t see them putting any of their livelihoods on the line in the same way they are gambling with the livelihood of thousands of Alaskans and the wildlife in the Bristol Bay area for generations to come.
It’s all so typical; we’ve heard it countless times before: Nobody could have predicted ... the earthquake would be that big ... the impermeable linings of the dams would leak ... the underground pipe would break and release pollutants into the groundwater for years before being discovered ... etc. You can add your own excuse.
Let’s make sure we never give Anglo American the opportunity to make these kinds excuses for the destruction of Bristol Bay or its watershed. Please take action now and sign NRDC’s petition telling Anglo American that the stakes are too high for us to accept its promises about Pebble Mine that it cannot keep.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Thor-Zone — Apr 10 2010 02:51 PM
This thread is so factually wrong in so many ways it is impossible to fix it in this short format.
1. It is not possible under both US and Alaska law to destroy "60 miles of salmon spawning habitat".
2. The area of the proposed mine will impact less than 3% of the watershed of Bristol Bay.
3. Anchorage's deepwater port has had zero impact on the same Belugas mentioned above over the last 50 years.
4. There is no mine plan at the moment, so the tailings disposal described above is fiction created by fear mongers.
The list of claims in this article goes on and on, but the problem is they are based mostly on legend and make believe. Let the process that we have in Alaska work. We have honed it over the last 30 or 40 years in dealing with projects large and small to work in our environment.
We Alaskans really hate it when outsiders try to tell us how we need to live our lives. Alaskans don't tell others how to make a living, we expect the same courtesy in return.
Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co. — Apr 10 2010 05:04 PM
Zak,
I have not formed an opinion on this project, but would like to sort things out sensibly.
Actually, AAUK had revenue last year of $20 billion and earnings were a fraction of this at about $4 billion. This is rather different from your rhetorical assertion that they "earned 2.5 trillion dollars". Still, they are among the largest mining companies.
This kind of writing sets an impression that there will be nothing related to fact in the remaining discussion.
Copper is an important commodity and it is in short supply. The kind of manufacturing jobs we need for financial recovery are significantly related to the availability of this commodity. The price at $3.50 per pound indicates that it is in short supply. The fact that it is short supply is due to the massive demand for China, and they also need it for their progress in making themselves a developed country like ourselves. Many of us hope for a recovery of our own manufacturing industry, so the need to find future supplies should not be quickly dismissed. I have to tell you, getting enough copper is not going to be an easy thing. Read about the Tenke Fungurume mine in the Congo to get an idea about this. We also might remember the advantages of having a national supply.
As a fundamental process, open pit mining is quite reasonable. You dig stuff up, sort out what you want and put back the rest. Nobody works in tunnels that can collapse on them.
The local people have to be fully protected, along with whatever is involved in their life style. But the local people may also be very pleased with the project if they are included in its operation. The Red Dog zinc mine in Alaska has a high degree of such local participation, and seems to be mostly satisfactory in its environmental sensitivity.
Sure, nothing is perfect, and as soon as I said that about the Red Dog, I started to wonder how things really were (It must not be easy to get people to go up there and find out what is happening). Although I urge broad thinking in making decisions, NRDC is important in getting things right. I just urge more analysis and less rhetoric.
Prospector — Apr 10 2010 07:25 PM
Zak hit almost all the talking points issued by the usual grievance professionals, except you missed the "toxic lake" bullet.
Just wondering, what will those 10,000,000,000 tons of waste rock be contaminated with?
Prospector — Apr 10 2010 07:36 PM
I just went to the whitepaper referenced by Zak regarding water quality and 25 large mines in the United States. The research actually makes a very strong case that Pebble will have low to non-existent impact in terms of acid mine drainage, contaminant leaching, and surface water quality. Pebble is a low-sulfide, intrusive hosted porphyry Cu-Au-Mo deposit, comparable to Fort Knox, Bagdad, & Morenci.
The research tends to support the proposition that water quality, if monitored and treated conventionally, will not be an issue at Pebble.
Thanks, Zak. Leave it to an attorney with zero understanding of geo-chemistry and geology to inadvertantly make the case for the mine.
John — Apr 12 2010 03:40 PM
I think we are all missing the point here. Its not if, or will it be toxic etc. The point is, why even risk damaging this ecosystem? One earthquake or other unforeseen disaster or accident will poison this area forever and potentially wipe out the salmon run. So why do it at all? sure it may function perfectly and not have any issues. But at some point, 200yrs. from now or one year into the project, something will inevitably happen. By the way, Alaskans won't be reaping all the benefits of the mining. Anglo-American and Northern Dynasty are not American companies. Read "Community, worker safety, public health, and environmental problems at Anglo American mining operations" to get a view of what you can expect from these type of operations.