Andy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,497
So you really don't think there could be a way for mechanized mining without creating slurry? Surely there has to be a way to do that.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Gold mine, or trout and salmon? Which do you prefer?
- Thread starter PLC1
- Start date
So you really don't think there could be a way for mechanized mining without creating slurry? Surely there has to be a way to do that.
Werbung:
Hi Guys,
A few things I will say here. Firstly, the mine in question is a very low grade ore, this is not large chunks of any mineral, nor any real veins of value. It is widely dispersed, and in small quantities. The only feasible method is through a very large and deep pit.
The problems this raise considering the surrounding environment is three fold.
Firstly, the simple location of the mine. It is in a highly sceismically active area, and water table exists at the earth's surface, the ground contains high volumes of sulphur and of course the immediate area surrounding the deposit is priceless fish rearing habitat that support at minimum a quarter million salmon smolt annually, along with plenty of other fish species, including some of the largest rainbow trout in the world.
The concern over the fish and other wildlife is the fact that it is a critical subsistence food source, and those fish support the largest salmon fishery in the world, which has been the industrial and economic base for region since the white guys showed up and introduced money, 120 years ago. The current fishery is one of the few in the world that has been certified sustainable, and entirely wild.
Secondly is the scale of the development, the footprint of the pit itself, and the tailings impoundment would be 25-30 square miles. The amount of water necessary for the mine use is more than the need from the city of Anchorage, a town of nearly 300,000 people.
Obviously a salmon returning from the ocean to spawn, to find out its home stream no longer in existance will more often than not, die without spawning.
Thirdly, is the methods involved and the potential for disaster. Copper and gold mining of this sort simply requires harsh chemicals to be used. But the potential for disaster here is great. The size of the tailings system are hard to fathom. Earthen dams well over 500 feet tall and miles in length to hold back billions of tons of tailings that if exposed to water and air at the same time(much the way rust forms on iron and steel) would produce sulphiric acid.
I think it is worthy to mention that there have been 7 earthquakes within 100 miles of the potential mine site within the last 24 hours. Granted most of them quite small, but the fault lines that run near the site are capable of producing quakes in the 7.0 range and higher. The 1964 quake that shook at 9.2 on the scale would have crumbled these dams and sent poisonous water and killing everything it touches down stream.
A few things I will say here. Firstly, the mine in question is a very low grade ore, this is not large chunks of any mineral, nor any real veins of value. It is widely dispersed, and in small quantities. The only feasible method is through a very large and deep pit.
The problems this raise considering the surrounding environment is three fold.
Firstly, the simple location of the mine. It is in a highly sceismically active area, and water table exists at the earth's surface, the ground contains high volumes of sulphur and of course the immediate area surrounding the deposit is priceless fish rearing habitat that support at minimum a quarter million salmon smolt annually, along with plenty of other fish species, including some of the largest rainbow trout in the world.
The concern over the fish and other wildlife is the fact that it is a critical subsistence food source, and those fish support the largest salmon fishery in the world, which has been the industrial and economic base for region since the white guys showed up and introduced money, 120 years ago. The current fishery is one of the few in the world that has been certified sustainable, and entirely wild.
Secondly is the scale of the development, the footprint of the pit itself, and the tailings impoundment would be 25-30 square miles. The amount of water necessary for the mine use is more than the need from the city of Anchorage, a town of nearly 300,000 people.
Obviously a salmon returning from the ocean to spawn, to find out its home stream no longer in existance will more often than not, die without spawning.
Thirdly, is the methods involved and the potential for disaster. Copper and gold mining of this sort simply requires harsh chemicals to be used. But the potential for disaster here is great. The size of the tailings system are hard to fathom. Earthen dams well over 500 feet tall and miles in length to hold back billions of tons of tailings that if exposed to water and air at the same time(much the way rust forms on iron and steel) would produce sulphiric acid.
I think it is worthy to mention that there have been 7 earthquakes within 100 miles of the potential mine site within the last 24 hours. Granted most of them quite small, but the fault lines that run near the site are capable of producing quakes in the 7.0 range and higher. The 1964 quake that shook at 9.2 on the scale would have crumbled these dams and sent poisonous water and killing everything it touches down stream.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
If the broken shells are really as toxic as people say and the mine just can't be operated without breaking some shells then logically it should not be allowed.
But if it is not as toxic as claimed or if they can do it another way then by all means let them do it.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I think it is worthy to mention that there have been 7 earthquakes within 100 miles of the potential mine site within the last 24 hours. Granted most of them quite small, but the fault lines that run near the site are capable of producing quakes in the 7.0 range and higher. The 1964 quake that shook at 9.2 on the scale would have crumbled these dams and sent poisonous water and killing everything it touches down stream.
Do you trust the EPA top consider this fact and decide if the proposal to contain such waste is sufficient to withstand earthquakes?
If the EPA can make such a determination the the mine should be allowed or disallowed based on the evaluation of the potential for poisoning the water.
This is a case where the EPA or maybe a State EPA should intervene and do what governments are supposed to do. If they can do it right then they should do it. If they cannot do it right then that should cause us all to question everything the government does very carefully.
I trust the EPA more than I do the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, and considering this is on state land, DNR takes a precedence on much of it. As for the EPA's and Army Corp of Engineers role, much of it is pending on a USSC decision that is due sometime soon. Which is based around the concept that a mine near Juneau wants to dump tailings into a lake. This will kill every organism in the lake. But the decision will be based on whether this is acceptable because apparently the lake will rejuvenate over a period of a few decades.
http://aprn.org/2009/01/12/supreme-court-hears-kensington-mine-toxic-waste-case/
But as for "doing it right" there simply isnt an economically viable way to build this mine without wiping out a minimum 250,000 salmon, that would otherwise be there every year. This is because the water table would have to be lowered to several thousand feet below the current level at the surface, that will effect a massive area surrounding the potential mine.
Then of course there is the tailings embankment which will basically cover the existing streams. It simply cannot be done without having a serious impact on the rivers, and the fish that live there, which are necessary for commercial and subsistence use.
So to simply answer your question, as for if I trust the various government agencies that would apply to this mine, I first and foremost dont trust Alaska DNR. Thier purpose is to develop the various resources of Alaska(minerals-oil and gas, and timber, etc.) but when it comes to mines they have had some dramatic recent failures. The Illinois Creek Mine, an open pit mine using cyanide leach methods, went backrupt shortly after opening and the state had to step in and operate the mine until enough funds were made to reclaim the mine. Then just recently there have been some major problems with the Rock Creek Mine near Nome. Which basically has shut down, and the state will probably also have to step in there because in each case the reclamation bonds required havent been anywhere near the actual cost of mine reclamation.
There are a few other examples of mines having problems and not coming anywhere near the EIS(environmental impact study) claims that are made. A perfect example would be the Red Dog Mine near Kotzebue, which has literally had thousands of water quality violations, but is still in operation, and has been subject to a fairly major lawsuit over this issue. Then a small cyanide leak at the Fort Knox Mine near Fairbanks.
So the track record is very questionable when it comes to mines that are to undergo the very same permitting process as Pebble would.
Well I certainly understand your logic here Andy, and I am generally a pro-development kind of guy as long as the local establishment are for it. But I would equate this mine, in this location, with these methods, as making DUI legal. Considering that 8.5 out of 10 mines of this sort dont meet the EIS requirements right now, it would be like having the legal limit of BAC be raised to 0.2 and not expect bad things to happen.
I am sure there are better analogies, but I think you get the point. Proceeding with this mine is a risk as of such where the likelihood of bad things is much more than the routine operations, that are found in other non-sceismically active, arid, and non-commercial fisheries supported habitat that is found in places like Nevada, Utah, Chile, and numerous other places.
You have convinced us. Now, given that the mine site is on state land, what can the residents of the lower 48 do to protest the project?
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
OK then. The DNR can't be trusted to protect the natural resources they were created to protect. What to do now?
Well it is not that simple. I guess in the most simple scenario, you can create awareness about the issue among your friends, family and colleagues. Then you can always join a group like Trout Unlimited or the Renewable Resource Coalition. There is also other grounds like Bristol Bay Alliance.
Also, you can urge your local members of Congress to write in tougher aspects of the clean water act. There have been amendments proposed, Id have to get back to you on exactly what they are.
Then there is the consumer aspect of this, which there are a number of jewelers who have pledged not to use Pebble Gold. I will also get a list of those together for you.
Here is a news video from a few weeks ago when the execs of Pebble showed up in my town. Sir Mark Moody, the Chairman of the Board, from Pebble Partner and mining giant Anglo American plc, was quite surprised at the reception he got from the locals. While I am not in the video, I was in attendance.
http://www.ktva.com/video?bcpid=1641243975&bclid=1632695727&bctid=18164011001
You can be sure that our local fly fishing club, of which I am a member, will be hearing about the Pebble mine. If the re is anything else to be done from here, let us know.
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that the laws about clean water etc tend to be ridiculous and at times draconian. Do we really need them to be tougher? If they are incapable of simply stopping people from putting toxins in water and killing salmon and trout en masse then I suspect the problem is not in the toughness of the laws.
You said yourself that you do not trust the EPA nor the DNR to do what they are supposed to do now. Could we really trust them to enforce laws that were tougher?
Perhaps a cleaning of house is more in order.