Don't know what I would do in a very large city, though current residence is a million folks, nowhere near the NY MILLIONS you live in Tom, so what you guys did and have done now is just starting unlike where I grew up in the middle of the woods of a smalltime steeltown that grew from the migration of southerners looking for good paying jobs, growing during the early 1900, to 200, 000, in the 60's to presently less than 70,000 presently. Lots of empty rotting decayed houses and buildings which surprisingly was and is quietly being bought up by Indiana University. From small farmers to steel town to college town? Hope I get to see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'd have to see documentation about that. Everything I have read is that the feds are completely irrational in their protections of wetlands and won't give an inch.

---

Not unusual for a small government conservative to hate whatever the feds do without bothering to understand it. Your MO on many subjects here. Not intended as a slight in any way, but I have encountered those feelings many times and believe it or not it's easily understood to have those feelings.

Quote:

---

As to the salmon story, this is your original statement. "I mean they are about to let miners destroy the salmon spawning rivers in Alaska." That is a gross exaggeration and not even your one-sided article suggested that. It is quite likely that the proposed mine, which would amount to using one acre for every 22,000 Alaskan acres, a pretty small piece of the pie, can coexist very well with the particular salmon streams in the same area.

---

Yeah if the natives are willing to change their diet and ways because mining and most of man's extraction endeavors destroys a way of life that the folks enjoy and destroy the land. Profits before People at it's most stark.

Quote:

---

As for the XL pipeline, it was an idiotic, politically driven decision by Obama that had nothing to do with land rights. Thankfully, Trump is reversing that and it's just one more reason why we are now energy independent, an amazing achievement that I never thought I would live to see. Of course I'm sure you'll say that it is all due to the brilliance of Obama.

---

Obama respected the PEOPLE on the land who didn't want the pipeline through their land, the dufus does NOT. More Profits over people since big energy gains all the profit. Maybe you should research it more before you talk about stuff you prove you know nothing about my low uniformed friend.

Quote:

---

As to the use of eminent domain to build pipelines, that's a tough one. I am not entirely comfortable with it, but I can see it from both sides. It would not seem wise to allow a few landowners to stop a project like that which is so important to our country.
004

---

More important to big biz, who profits and to be honest so does America, because we need a robust energy policy, and so does our northern neighbor Canada which has many resources that American really rich guys control. What the heck does 004 represent?

Quote:

---

Not unusual for a small government conservative to hate whatever the feds do without bothering to understand it. Your MO on many subjects here. Not intended as a slight in any way, but I have encountered those feelings many times and believe it or not it's easily understood to have those feelings.

---

I ask for documentation and instead get a lecture on feelings.

Quote:

---

Yeah if the natives are willing to change their diet and ways because mining and most of man's extraction endeavors destroys a way of life that the folks enjoy and destroy the land. Profits before People at it's most stark.

---

The great likelihood is that no native will be changing their diet. Did you overdo the coffee this morning?

Quote:

---

Obama respected the PEOPLE on the land who didn't want the pipeline through their land, the dufus does NOT. More Profits over people since big energy gains all the profit. Maybe you should research it more before you talk about stuff you prove you know nothing about my low uniformed friend.

---

That is not what Obama was doing. He opposed the pipeline because he thought it would contribute to GW and was appeasing his base. That is why we never became energy independent under his watch.

Quote:

---

More important to big biz, who profits and to be honest so does America, because we need a robust energy policy, and so does our northern neighbor Canada which has many resources that American really rich guys control. What the heck does 004 represent?

---

I don't think you have any idea if any of that is true. 004? That is the percentage (0.004%) of Alaskan land that the mine will occupy. Not much is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I ask for documentation and instead get a lecture on feelings.

---

There was plenty of documentation but as you usually do you dismissed and ignored it because it undermined YOUR opinion. You are always more about YOUR feelings than the facts and when you do it, expect the same response.

Quote:

---

The great likelihood is that no native will be changing their diet. Did you overdo the coffee this morning?

---

That's not what the natives are saying!

Quote:

---

That is not what Obama was doing. He opposed the pipeline because he thought it would contribute to GW and was appeasing his base. That is why we never became energy independent under his watch.

---

On this we don't have to argue just refer to the EPA studies and assessments back then. You just don't quit your BS do you? Energy independence happened because of the collective effort over many presidents to achieve that goal and as usual you think the dufus deserves all the credit for getting there. PATHETIC to the MAX!

I don't think you have any idea if any of that is true. 004? That is the percentage (0.004%) of Alaskan land that the mine will occupy. Not much is it?[/QUOTE]

I suppose we will see how much is affected since it looks like it's going to happen if the governor and the dufus gets it's way.

Quote:

---

Not unusual for a small government conservative to hate whatever the feds do without bothering to understand it. Your MO on many subjects here. Not intended as a slight in any way, but I have encountered those feelings many times and believe it or not it's easily understood to have those feelings.

---

Quote:

---

There was plenty of documentation

---

OK. I'll call you out on this one. Your quote I referred to is on top. Where is the documentation in your quote????? Where???

Quote:

---

That's not what the natives are saying!

---

Oh. Well then of course they must be right. After all, I'm sure they are experts on mining.

Quote:

---

On this we don't have to argue just refer to the EPA studies and assessments back then. You just don't quit your BS do you? Energy independence happened because of the collective effort over many presidents to achieve that goal and as usual you think the dufus deserves all the credit for getting there. PATHETIC to the MAX!

---

You're kind of Mr. Sensitive today, aren't you? Well, first of all, I did not say that Trump deserved all of the credit. Learn to read. Secondly, I have linked the NBC news article from the time that Obama, in your ridiculous version, put it all on the line to protect the property owners. The article makes it clear that the environment was the driving factor, and GW in particular. There is not a mention of protecting landowners rights, so get your story straight.

You might find this part to be of particular interest IF you bother to read it.

"But ultimately, Obama’s decision on the pipeline won’t affect the export of oil from Canada. The pipeline would simply increase the distance of the already existing Keystone Pipeline, increasing the amount of barrels per day to 830,000.A 2014 report from the State Department determined that the pipeline would contribute to climate change, but no more so than any other alternative options for transporting the oil. The State Department report found that the contribution to climate change would be better with the pipeline than with the rail or tanker options.
The report also found, however, that significant economic growth would result, including 42,100 jobs and $3.4 billion or approximately 0.2 percent of the U.S. GDP."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...oposal-n458651

They are natives and live on the land and want to keep living off the land in peace. They don't want to be experts in mining other than the changes to their way of life the mining will bring.

The great likelihood is that they can achieve living on the land in peace and the mine still operate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The great likelihood is that they can achieve living on the land in peace and the mine still operate.

---

Do you want a working mine in your backyard?

No one is talking about a backyard. Keep up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No one is talking about a backyard. Keep up.

---

The mine is in the natives' backyard. And front yard. And screwing up access to places they want to go to. And the noise!!! Oh, my!

Quote:

---

The mine is in the natives' backyard. And front yard. And screwing up access to places they want to go to. And the noise!!! Oh, my!

---

Well done! To be wrong four times in such a short passage is phenomenal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Well done! To be wrong four times in such a short passage is phenomenal.

---

How so? Oh, I didn't mention fouling the waterways.

There is no mine, so it is in no one's back or front yard, nor does it make noise, and it certainly is not blocking access. It is all still in the permitting phase. But even if it was up and going, it would be over twenty miles from the nearest native settlements, so still no one's back yard or front yard will be impacted, nor will there be a noise problem, and no access problems. Fouling waterways? Most likely not.

From Wikipedia. "The Pebble prospect is in a remote, wild, and generally uninhabited part of the Bristol Bay watershed. The nearest communities, about 20 miles (32 km) distant, are the villages of Nondalton, Newhalen, and Iliamna. The site is 200 miles (320 km) southwest of Anchorage, Alaska.^[3]"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

There is no mine, so it is in no one's back or front yard, nor does it make noise, and it certainly is not blocking access. It is all still in the permitting phase. But even if it was up and going, it would be over twenty miles from the nearest native settlements, so still no one's back yard or front yard will be impacted, nor will there be a noise problem, and no access problems. Fouling waterways? Most likely not.

From Wikipedia. "The Pebble prospect is in a remote, wild, and generally uninhabited part of the Bristol Bay watershed. The nearest communities, about 20 miles (32 km) distant, are the villages of Nondalton, Newhalen, and Iliamna. The site is 200 miles (320 km) southwest of Anchorage, Alaska.^[3]"

---

Whose property would it be on? Bristol Bay watershed??? No fouling of waterways???

Using your Wikipedia source:

"The controversy over the proposed Pebble mine centers largely on the potential risk to the watershed, salmon and other fisheries. Mining opponents claim that the mine poses a significant and unacceptable risk to downstream fish stocks, and could cause an environmental disaster if built."

"In April 2009, a Native delegation from the Bristol Bay region attended the annual shareholder's meeting of Anglo American, the major mining company behind the Pebble project. The delegation met with Cynthia Carroll, CEO of Anglo American, claiming that the Bristol Bay watershed is no place for an open-pit mine."

It would be on state property. As to your quote, I imagine the natives would be seriously interested in making certain fed law is followed concerning EPA regs. I don't blame them for that.

Of course there is potential for risk. What doesn't have potential for risk that's worth doing? If we panicked and stopped every time we found potential for risk, we'd never get anything done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It would be on state property. As to your quote, I imagine the natives would be seriously interested in making certain fed law is followed concerning EPA regs. I don't blame them for that.

Of course there is potential for risk. What doesn't have potential for risk that's worth doing? If we panicked and stopped every time we found potential for risk, we'd never get anything done.

---

Also from Wikipedia:

• The fish in the watershed, and the wildlife that depend on them, are too important to risk in exchange for the mine's economic benefits. (Bristol Bay is the most valuable Sockeye Salmon fishery in the world — generating $1.5 billion in annual profit.)
• Accidental discharge of process chemicals and byproducts, heavy metals, and acid mine drainage to the environment are concerns in mine design and operation. Heavy metals are mobilized by acids. Downstream salmon and freshwater fish species are vulnerable to mine-generated pollutants. A threat to the fisheries would amount to a threat to the regional subsistence lifestyle.
• Hard-rock mining already has a notable track record in terms of the permanent and costly legacy of heavy-metal-laden acidic leachate that continuously flows from inactive, depleted old mine sites. According to the EPA, mining has contaminated portions of the headwaters of over 40 percent of watersheds in the western continental U.S., and reclamation of 500,000 abandoned mines in 32 states could cost tens of billions of dollars.
• A recent study of 25 modern large hard-rock metal mines compared water quality outcomes with environmental impact statement (EIS) predictions from the permitting stage. 76 percent (19 mines) of the 25 mines violated water quality standards in releases to either surface or groundwater. In this study "violated water quality standards" does not necessarily mean that the mines failed to abide by their permits. When the 15 mines with high-acid drainage, high-contaminant leaching potential and proximity to ground water are considered separately, this number is 93% (14 mines).
• A report commissioned by opponents criticizes for community, worker safety, public health, and environmental problems at their mining operations in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Mali, Ireland, and Nevada and notes the difference between the previous owner's stated corporate goals and their actual corporate performance. (Anglo American gave up on Pebble Project due to environmental concerns; these concerns remain under the subsequent owners of the project.)
• Groundtruthtrekking.org claimed that earthquake hazards in the area are poorly known.

And the same article also says, "

• The mine and supporting activities would provide significant tax revenue to the state. The State of Alaska predicts that direct mining tax revenue, even without Pebble, will be one of the most important sources of non-oil tax revenue (exceeding revenue from fishing).^[87]
• The mine will create well-paying jobs in an increasingly poverty-stricken region^[87]—a 2007 estimate indicated roughly 2,000 jobs for construction, dropping to 1,000 permanent jobs during the 30- to 60-year expected lifespan of the mine.^[88]. However, the current expected mine life has been decreased to 20 years following changes to the development plan in 2018^[89]. Also, the recent and well-documented trend towards automation of mining means that actual employment figures will be substantially lower than those quoted in 2007. Automation of mines will further increase in the future.
• The mine would provide a domestic resource of raw materials lowering the United States reliance on foreign sources.^[90]

Environmental[edit]

• Protection of the environment and fisheries will be ensured by the stringent environmental review and permitting process, including an EIS, that is required before development is allowed.^{[citation needed]}
• Much of the poor environmental track record of mining occurred before current technologies and regulations.^{[citation needed]}
• Northern Dynasty has a "no net loss" policy for fisheries.^[91]"

If fish and wildlife are at risk, earthquakes can very possibly result, my water source will be contaminated (because Trump is killing the EPA), and the beauty of my environment will be destroyed, I won't worry about jobs whereby I'll get screwed in other ways.

No such thing as life without risk. You don't worry about a job because you don't need one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No such thing as life without risk. You don't worry about a job because you don't need one.

---

The stats indicate they don't want it.

Then maybe we should let "them" work it out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Then maybe we should let "them" work it out?

---

No!!! I'm going up there and make sure they do this right!!!!

Should we not look at the accidents and environmental damage of previous mistakes, accidents, spills, and how these companies have responded? Has Mississippi and other guld states fully recovered from the gulf spill? How long ago was Exxon Valdez? How about the power companies and factories that have fouled land and water and still haven't fully brought the land or water? No risk no reward? Or do you really mean Profits over people! Don't answer, we already know that answer.

let the lone crusader go Tal

That's what happens Clete when you have nothing else to do and no friends. Seriously though, I'm all for big biz, but they should clean up their own mess and a simple google search show they do not. They make money and leave the mess for taxpayers to deal with. There is no plan on their part to MANAGE the risk, but they are gung ho for the rewards. Alaskan natives can delay that outcome but the dufus is hell bent on giving Big Biz what it wants so say good bye to another pristine unspoiled eco system to be seen only in the books of old pictures.

Did learn a darn thing from the Exxon valdez disaster.

Sure guys. Let's just do away with oil, mining, bridges (they collapse), vaccinations, chemotherapy, banks (they fail), mortgages, cars (30,000 deaths a year), airplanes, electricity, and live back in the dark ages. All of your platitudes sound so appealing until they are put to the test, and then it becomes apparent how crazy they are. Managed risk has always, and will always, be the only road to progress.

WG, dress warmly. It's cold up there!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Sure guys. Let's just do away with oil, mining, bridges (they collapse), vaccinations, chemotherapy, banks (they fail), mortgages, cars (30,000 deaths a year), airplanes, electricity, and live back in the dark ages. All of your platitudes sound so appealing until they are put to the test, and then it becomes apparent how crazy they are. Managed risk has always, and will always, be the only road to progress.

WG, dress warmly. It's cold up there!!

---

Who said do away with anything, oh, that's right, YOU did! See how that distraction fraction deal gets away from what I wrote? Of course you don't. None of your posts addresses the real deal I posted. I knew you wouldn't understand the idea of companies or corporations managing their risks I mean holding a company to cleaning up their own mess is unthinkable to you.

Here is your statement. " No risk no reward?" Well, that is exactly correct. All progress requires managed risk. What did we learn from Exxon Valdez? We learned that Exxon had to pay for the cleanup. We learned that the area was, indeed, cleaned up. We learned that the oil has continued flowing and now we are energy independent. Same thing in the Gulf. The oil company paid for the cleanup and it has been cleaned up. If we want to continue to move forward, we have to start acting like grown-ups and not like little baby girls who hide in a corner crying and whimpering when anything goes wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Here is your statement. " No risk no reward?" Well, that is exactly correct. All progress requires managed risk. What did we learn from Exxon Valdez? We learned that Exxon had to pay for the cleanup. We learned that the area was, indeed, cleaned up. We learned that the oil has continued flowing and now we are energy independent. Same thing in the Gulf. The oil company paid for the cleanup and it has been cleaned up. If we want to continue to move forward, we have to start acting like grown-ups and not like little baby girls who hide in a corner crying and whimpering when anything goes wrong.

---

You cannot possibly be that NAIVE!

https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/w...0-years-later/

AND

https://www.edf.org/ecosystems/whats-ahead-gulf

Go ahead tell me again what a great job of cleaning up the mess the corporations did. That's just TWO examples, before you spout off nonsense again.

Hakaimagazine? Really?

As to the second loony link, even though I should know better by now to follow your links to nowhere, I looked at that one from the no doubt fair and even-handed Environment Defense Fund. Even your own article could find nothing of real consequence to report! The best they could do was this. "But more mysterious and just as worrying is what scientists have a much harder time measuring, like the impacts on deepwater corals, zooplankton and various marine life that lives in the middle depths of the sea, explains EDF chief oceans scientist Douglas N. Rader."To top it off, all of this occurred near the Mississippi River Delta, an ecosystem already under enormous pressure," Rader says. This pressure is driven by century-old development choices that favored commerce and development over sustainability. And now research has shown that the rate of marsh shoreline erosion increased with oiling."

Bottom line. The Gulf is back in business, no areas of real concern have been identified, and the oil company was out 20 billion for the cleanup. And yes, it was cleaned up, which is what I said. Are there still some ares of concern. Could be, but the oil has been cleaned up. Same thing is true of the EV incident. Are there still some areas where oil can be found? Probably. Several hundred miles of remote wilderness would mean you can still find some places with oil. That's just life. Get over it.

I'd love to know what you want. Do you want to shut down all offshore oil production? Do you want to do away with oil tankers? We can do that, but the price of gasoline is going to double along with natural gas and heating oil. What will that do for you? What will that do for poor people? What will it do for the economy? So what is it that you want? You love to bellyache because Trump is the pres and you hate him which clouds your thinking about everything. At some point you have to stop whining and make some proposals. What do you want???

Glad your happy that you bought the cosmetics spin, so you can ignore the longer term effects of spoiling the Earth for profits over people. I want you to reverse your attitude and put the people first. Is that just so undoable or unreasonable?

So again. I'd love to know what you want. Do you want to shut down all offshore oil production? Do you want to do away with oil tankers? Do you want to shut down all open pit mining? We can do that, but the price of gasoline is going to double along with natural gas and heating oil. In fact, the price of everything will rise dramatically. What will that do for you? What will that do for poor people? What will it do for the economy? So what is it that you want? You love to bellyache because Trump is the pres and you hate him which clouds your thinking about everything. At some point you have to stop the endless complaining and make some proposals. What do you want???

Look, I have seen enough "Super Fund" sites to know that the damages inflicted by industrial usage of lands can be near permanent when the spillages of process chemicals and wastes were not "policed"....but these were normally sites where chronic missteps were perpetuated over decades, not solitary instances of excursions. However, the Super Fund sites can be so bad that the "owners" are forced to keep the sites in their ownership because the cleanup costs are TOO HIGH for them to pay for it: better just keep it fenced off and perform whatever level of remediation is necessary (as in accordance to the orders of the EPA) to get by the requirements over time.

While the EPA may have been somewhat "overweight", putting the EPA on an Anorexic diet may not be what we need: Normally, throwing the baby out with the bath water is not usually a good idea.