Gold mine, or trout and salmon? Which do you prefer?

[PLC1]

I guess when it comes down to it the only thing I object to about this thread is that it presupposes a forced dichotomy in which the only choices are a gold mine and the destruction of trout and salmon OR no gold mine and healthy trout and salmon.

It just does not seem like it would be that hard for a gold mine to coexist with healthy trout and salmon. And there are all sorts of forces pushing for just that.

At least, not until one of those Alaskan earthquakes causes a rift in one of the giant earth dams and releases poisons into the river, or until the mine uses enough water to impact salmon spawning areas, sure, both could coexist.

Acids, for example, the kinds used in mining, and salmonids, such as trout, char, and salmon, are not compatible. Salmonids like a ph level greater than 7.

 

[Bunz]

Then you likely should vote it down.

Well it isnt that easy. There isnt exactly a way to have a simple yes or no vote that actually matters. On a personal note, in my capacity on the city council I have supported a number of resolutions that were unsupportive of this mine. All of which has passed. I have also been apart of a lobbying effort to support a variety of measures that are pending in the state legislature. Mostly surrounding the strenghtening of the permitting requirements, and an increase in royalties and taxes paid to state and local governments especially, but even on the federal level.

I am curious if you know of any other mines that have killed off the wild life, and wiped out a population. I personally do not.

Well in terms of human deaths, most of the risk of course deals with working at the mine site itself. This is assuming a dam that is 750ft tall and 2.5miles wide is able to hold through some potentially very powerful earthquakes. Because the water and other waste it is holding back is potentially very toxic.
As for mines that are examples of development that have been simply tragic to the surrounding areas, here is a link that details the various tailings dams failures that have happened.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/mdaf.html

(for the record, this is not something I bothered learning about until Pebble became an issue, so there was a time when I was quite ignorant about the process as well)
But there are other examples and a pending decision in the USSC, that would set a precedence for other mines in America. THe USSC case involved the Kensington mine in Juneau where the company involved wants to basically dump its tailings directly into lower slate lake. Effectively killing all aquatic life there.
Pebble would do a similar method, by basically draining much of the Koktuli River and Upper Tularik creek. Both of which critical salmon spawning grounds and produce some of the biggest trout, grayling and char in the world. Which of course those fish feed a large number of brown bears, and the area also serves as a critical habitat for the caribou belonging to the Mulchatna heard. Among the biggest in the world, and as important of a subsistence resource as the salmon.

I would encourage you to read about the mine in Pitcher Oklahoma, the Berkley Pit in Montana(which would be similar to Pebble, but quite smaller) then there are other examples of mines in America and Canada that have done signifigant harm to the environment. This is not mentioning the literally hundreds of other mines in 2nd and third world countries that have been absolutely devastating to the countryside.

From what I have read, modern copper mines are relatively clean. Hopefully this isn't from environmental wackos, that you are getting this information. What does the company and the EPA say? If 2.5 billion tons of acid is unaviodable, I can't see how the EPA would pass it.

Depends on what you consider clean. Sure, it isnt a mercury or uranium mine, but the low grade pyrite-sulphide copper, will eventually create sulphiric acid that will leach into the surrounding ground water. It is worthy to note that roughly 90% of mines dont meet the EIS(enviro impact statement) claims made by the company. The only ones that are near accurate are in arid/desert environments. Which is certainly not the case when it comes to Bristol Bay.
As for the 2.5billion tons, I should also clarify, because that is enough poison to kill all life on the planet. But that is the estimated weight of the tailings waste rock. It wont create literally that much sulphiric acid, but certainly a massive amount. All it takes is for the rock containing sulphur(the vast majority) to be combined with water and air at the same time, and acid mine drainage is created.

It's interesting to read up on this. Of course this isn't a topic I'm well familar with. The bad part is, I have yet to hear the other half of the argument, which for me is very important before establishing my view on a subject.

Fair enough, you are more than free to read the information that the Pebble folks have provided. Unfortunately, at the point when it comes to information they are willing to give out, is largely the fact they "dont know yet" Which is also quite frustrating because I know people who work for Pebble and am told they already have very detailed mine plans that they are yet willing to make public.

However given what I know thus far, I think I would push for a reduced plan. Not quite as large, and not quite as risky. But once again, I still see this as a completely Alaskan issue. Since I'm not from Alaska, I don't consider my views all that important.

I have also said that they might have a different response from locals if they reduced the scale of the mine. But considering the infastructure needed, and the otherwise low grade of ore at the site, anything short of what they are wanting would make it "uneconomical" in thier eyes.

 

[Bunz]

I guess when it comes down to it the only thing I object to about this thread is that it presupposes a forced dichotomy in which the only choices are a gold mine and the destruction of trout and salmon OR no gold mine and healthy trout and salmon.

This is what those wanting to develop the mine are saying. That both can co-exist, but the fact of the matter is that the tailings system are going to fill in some very critical habitat. Also there is little assurance the massive tailings dams will hold, and not signifigantly pollute ground and surface water.

It just does not seem like it would be that hard for a gold mine to coexist with healthy trout and salmon. And there are all sorts of forces pushing for just that.

The problem largely is that the examples throughout history would prove this wrong. As PLC has pointed out that the amount of toxins found in the native fish in many western states and provinces proved otherwise.
Again this goes back to many factors, namely the method of mining involved, the chemicals used to extract copper and gold from raw ore and the issue of having a massive waste disposal system that is subject to high amounts of precipitation and unpredictable sceismic events.

For the majority of those living in the effected areas, the bottom line is that the risks arent worth the return.

 

[Andy]

I guess when it comes down to it the only thing I object to about this thread is that it presupposes a forced dichotomy in which the only choices are a gold mine and the destruction of trout and salmon OR no gold mine and healthy trout and salmon.

It just does not seem like it would be that hard for a gold mine to coexist with healthy trout and salmon. And there are all sorts of forces pushing for just that.

Exactly. That's it right there. We have already assumed the two options are set.

 

[Dr.Who]

At least, not until one of those Alaskan earthquakes causes a rift in one of the giant earth dams and releases poisons into the river, or until the mine uses enough water to impact salmon spawning areas, sure, both could coexist.

Acids, for example, the kinds used in mining, and salmonids, such as trout, char, and salmon, are not compatible. Salmonids like a ph level greater than 7.

I would propose having the mine but not putting the toxic waste behind and earth damn (and preferably not making it to begin with). The cost of not making the waste or containing it properly should fall solely on the shoulders of the mine owners who will decide to have or not to have a safe mine based on the profitability of it. But by all means when they are told they need to have a safe mind cut out the bs politics and make it solely about having a safe mine and not about other issues.

Same with coal electric plants. We all know that they are spewing toxins into the air. It is legitimate to mandate that they do not do that. If it makes the process too expensive then the alternatives will look more attractive. But it is stupid to do nothing to stop the pollution but to cap and trade or tax them through clandestine methods hoping to spur the alternatives. A tax on light bulbs is not the right way to stop pollution but it will increase revenues for the state.

 

[Andy]

I would propose having the mine but not putting the toxic waste behind and earth damn (and preferably not making it to begin with). The cost of not making the waste or containing it properly should fall solely on the shoulders of the mine owners who will decide to have or not to have a safe mine based on the profitability of it. But by all means when they are told they need to have a safe mind cut out the bs politics and make it solely about having a safe mine and not about other issues.

Same with coal electric plants. We all know that they are spewing toxins into the air. It is legitimate to mandate that they do not do that. If it makes the process too expensive then the alternatives will look more attractive. But it is stupid to do nothing to stop the pollution but to cap and trade or tax them through clandestine methods hoping to spur the alternatives. A tax on light bulbs is not the right way to stop pollution but it will increase revenues for the state.

They are claiming that it's not possible to mine, and not make toxic waste. To what degree this is true, I do not know.

 

[Dr.Who]

They are claiming that it's not possible to mine, and not make toxic waste. To what degree this is true, I do not know.

Hmmm? Well a logical person would say that toxic waste is bad and that they should not make it or they should have to prove they can contain it very well. Will the government (since this is a time when it is appropriate for them to regulate) do something logical?

 

[Bunz]

I would propose having the mine but not putting the toxic waste behind and earth damn (and preferably not making it to begin with). The cost of not making the waste or containing it properly should fall solely on the shoulders of the mine owners who will decide to have or not to have a safe mine based on the profitability of it. But by all means when they are told they need to have a safe mind cut out the bs politics and make it solely about having a safe mine and not about other issues.

While I would agree with you, but the fiscal and geological issues behind the mine make it into a situation where it would be uneconomical to use other methods besides a pit based mine with a cyanide heap leaching process.
Ultimately the issue boils down to several things, the biggest being that the mine cannot be built without the use of some very toxic substances, and the nature of the geology, and the fact that this is a sulfur based tailings system that sulfuric acid could easily be generated and of course the content of cyanide in the tailings pond are causing the uproar.

Same with coal electric plants. We all know that they are spewing toxins into the air. It is legitimate to mandate that they do not do that. If it makes the process too expensive then the alternatives will look more attractive. But it is stupid to do nothing to stop the pollution but to cap and trade or tax them through clandestine methods hoping to spur the alternatives. A tax on light bulbs is not the right way to stop pollution but it will increase revenues for the state.

While I dont disagree with your sentiments, the issue on the ground here is that there is no real good way to simply say NO to the mine. Because the state designated the land in question as open for mineral development back in the early 60s, assuming there was little value in large scale mining, that now there becomes the question of a constitutional taking that is involved.
Personally, I am pushing a law that would make mining/oil and gas rights and claims thereof court enforcable after all the permits to operate the land is approved.

 

[Bunz]

Hmmm? Well a logical person would say that toxic waste is bad and that they should not make it or they should have to prove they can contain it very well. Will the government (since this is a time when it is appropriate for them to regulate) do something logical?

The biggest question right now in the state departments administering the issue is how much toxins should be allowed.

I think it is worthy to note that a mine of this sort would would never even be considered to be developed at this site in another first world jurisdiction. The company involved, is based in BC Canada, and the BC government wouldnt allow this sort of mine in terms of scale and type anywhere near the headwaters of a salmon spawning stream.

 

[Bunz]

They are claiming that it's not possible to mine, and not make toxic waste. To what degree this is true, I do not know.

Well I am %99 sure that a heap leach cyanide method will be used to extract the ore from the waste rock. But whichever method is used, the chemical that seperates the ore from the waste will be toxic, that is the nature of this sort of mineral development.

Then of course there is the issue of production of acid mine drainage(yellow boy). Which is basically sulphiric acid. It is caused when sulphur is exposed to water and air at the same time. Similar to how rust is produced on steel and iron. Except for much more harmful.

 

[Dr.Who]

While I would agree with you, but the fiscal and geological issues behind the mine make it into a situation where it would be uneconomical to use other methods besides a pit based mine with a cyanide heap leaching process.
Ultimately the issue boils down to several things, the biggest being that the mine cannot be built without the use of some very toxic substances, and the nature of the geology, and the fact that this is a sulfur based tailings system that sulfuric acid could easily be generated and of course the content of cyanide in the tailings pond are causing the uproar.

While I dont disagree with your sentiments, the issue on the ground here is that there is no real good way to simply say NO to the mine. Because the state designated the land in question as open for mineral development back in the early 60s, assuming there was little value in large scale mining, that now there becomes the question of a constitutional taking that is involved.
Personally, I am pushing a law that would make mining/oil and gas rights and claims thereof court enforcable after all the permits to operate the land is approved.

I can't speak for the gov and what they will do.

Were it me I would say they can make the mine but they cannot create lots of toxic waste and leave it up to them to figure out how and if they still want to proceed with the project.

 

[PLC1]

I can't speak for the gov and what they will do.

Were it me I would say they can make the mine but they cannot create lots of toxic waste and leave it up to them to figure out how and if they still want to proceed with the project.

That's like saying you can make an omelet if you want to, but don't break any eggs. It's not possible to have such a mine and not create toxic waste.

 

[Andy]

Hmmm? Well a logical person would say that toxic waste is bad and that they should not make it or they should have to prove they can contain it very well. Will the government (since this is a time when it is appropriate for them to regulate) do something logical?

Ok, well first, you have to understand what is meant by toxic. Nearly ANYTHING in massive quantities is 'toxic'. Salt in massive quantities can be toxic. Sun light, in massive quantities is toxic. Even Vitamin A and D are toxic in large quantities. Even nuclear radiation is only toxic in large quantities. Your smoke detector, TV set (old style), Microwave, and the Sun, all emit radiation, just not in lethal quantities.

So when someone says toxic, in this case what does that mean exactly? Coal isn't found in neat large square chunks in the the Earth obviously. So when it is mined, you get all kinds of earth and rocks and stuff.

Before it is ready for transport, it must be relatively purified. In this process, it is dumped into a large bath, where the rocks sink, and the coal floats. Then the coal is spin dried. In both cases, the water containing sentiment and contaminates, is placed in a separator, where most collects at the bottom, but the rest (which is called slurry) is dumped as waste into a retention pond.

Slurry can contain ash, soluble metals and minerals, and arsenic which is easily absorbed into the water during the washing process. Now what makes it toxic, is the same thing that makes the salt in the dead sea toxic. The dead sea has a bunch of rivers that feed it, but no exit. All water has salt in it, but none is toxic. But as the sea keeps getting more salt, yet loses water to evaporation, the salt level keeps going up.

Similarly, as the retention ponds loses water to evaporation, but keeps getting a fresh supply of waste water with metals, minerals and natural arsenic, the levels increase until they are toxic.

Key point here is: This isn't some awful company dumping tons of toxic chemicals into one of their drain pipes and pumping it out into the environment. This is simply naturally existing elements being concentrated in a pond. Anything in too high a quantity is toxic.

Now Coal slurry is one of the least dangerous types because coal isn't in and of itself, a major toxin, and is broken down by biological agents. Nickle for example is far more hazardous as fine metal powder is carried in the water, and doesn't break down real well. Arsenic will eventually wash out. In the short term it can wreak havoc, but at some point rain will dilute the concentration.

 

[Andy]

That's like saying you can make an omelet if you want to, but don't break any eggs. It's not possible to have such a mine and not create toxic waste.

That's kind of debate able. Keep in mind that mines operated for a hundred years before they mechanized the whole thing. It was the mechanization that caused the need for water, and therefore slurry, to be created. Before that, you had guys doing down with carts, filling them with coal and dirt, and rolling it out of the mine. No waste of any kind, except for removed dirt, was created.

Now you have metal blades that are sprayed with water to keep cool, and water separation tanks that have to be drained.

Now if someone could come up with a system that didn't require water, or could perfectly filter out metal particulate, or possibly just come up with a system that eliminated the retention pond somehow, then it's possible zero toxic waste would be created.

Realize that a mine, and a water well, are not all that much different. The primary difference being a mine is much deeper, and the water isn't wanted.

For example, here's an article about a closed mine, that filled with water. The company wants to reopen the mine. So they are going to pump out the water, and use it for crop irrigation. It's not toxic. It's like well water. Now they still plan to us a little bit of lime to clear out any unwanted metals, but that's just an additional safety precaution because it's a copper mine. (so some copper in the water is logical and expected).

 

[PLC1]

That's kind of debate able. Keep in mind that mines operated for a hundred years before they mechanized the whole thing. It was the mechanization that caused the need for water, and therefore slurry, to be created. Before that, you had guys doing down with carts, filling them with coal and dirt, and rolling it out of the mine. No waste of any kind, except for removed dirt, was created.

Now you have metal blades that are sprayed with water to keep cool, and water separation tanks that have to be drained.

Now if someone could come up with a system that didn't require water, or could perfectly filter out metal particulate, or possibly just come up with a system that eliminated the retention pond somehow, then it's possible zero toxic waste would be created.

Realize that a mine, and a water well, are not all that much different. The primary difference being a mine is much deeper, and the water isn't wanted.

For example, here's an article about a closed mine, that filled with water. The company wants to reopen the mine. So they are going to pump out the water, and use it for crop irrigation. It's not toxic. It's like well water. Now they still plan to us a little bit of lime to clear out any unwanted metals, but that's just an additional safety precaution because it's a copper mine. (so some copper in the water is logical and expected).

OK, cool. Let's have a mine, but only allow pick and shovel work. Well, OK, they can use a wheelbarrow as well.