 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
- 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.
- 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]
- 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]"
|
||||
|
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.  Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.
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.
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 |
||||
|
||||
|
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.
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.
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.
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?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The great likelihood is that no native will be changing their diet. Did you overdo the coffee this morning?
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.
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
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.
There was plenty of documentation
|
||||
|
||||
|
That's not what the natives are saying!
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 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 |
||||
|
||||
|
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]" |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
||||
|
||||
|
And the same article also says, "
Environmental[edit] |
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
View more questions Search
|
