Opponents of the Pebble Project have been advertising a very strange message. They have been telling us that the time to stop the Pebble Mine is now, before a company applies for permits.
This concept is perplexing. The mining company will have invested tens – if not hundreds – of millions of dollars worth of environmental and engineering data before it applies for permits. Why shouldn’t Alaskans get the opportunity to review the information before we make a decision? Only after the agencies have evaluated the data and the design can we say whether the project is compatible with our critical fisheries and resources.
Because this message is so perplexing, it is easy to overlook the implicit message in advertisements and of those who oppose the project. That message is this: “Don’t trust the permit process. Once the company applies, the agencies will never deny the permits.” This message appears to motivate some who wish to say “No” before the information is available.
History shows agencies do say “No” to projects. (See box below developed by RDC). Alaska has a rigorous permit process. We will have adequate opportunity to disapprove the mine if it fails to protect our resources.
There is a lot we do not know about the Pebble Project:
The currently discussed design was published before the company really explored the underground, high-grade, east zone. As a result, we do not know if the mine will be an open pit mine, underground mine, or combination.
We do not know when the permit application package will be submitted. It may be years away before Alaskans can review the proposed design and alternatives.
We do not even know what company will apply for permits or operate a mine if it is permitted. Northern Dynasty has indicated that it is currently marketing the project. The owner may be a single international mining company or a consortium. Northern Dynasty may or may not be involved.
With over 50 permits required for a hard-rock mine, there are numerous opportunities for agencies to deny approvals. Perhaps the most important basis for denial would be if the mine cannot protect water quality.
Both the state and federal governments (the U.S. Environ mental Protection Agency and the AlaskaDepartment of Environmental Conservation) must agree that the mine will protect water quality. Both government entities are required to deny permits if the project cannot show it will protect water quality. This is not a political decision, it is a technical one. If the agencies’ scientists do not agree that water quality is protected, the agencies must deny the permits.
Scientists’ predictions of future water quality are not foolproof. Therefore, the agencies must evaluate the predicted water quality, but they must also review contingencies. The project must have a safety net and back-up facilities in the system in case the predictions are wrong or a reasonably foreseeable accident occurs. In the critical location where Pebble is found, the project must not only show that it will meet Alaska’s water quality standards, it must also show there are back-up mechanisms in place to protect water quality from errors in prediction or accidents. If the project cannot do this, Alaskans and agencies have the obligation and legal responsibility to deny permits for the project.
But to do so now, before Alaskans have had a chance to review the data and design, or even the technical and operational capacities of the proposed operating company, is wrong.
In the words of ancient King Solomon, “He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is a folly and a shame to him.”
Glen Alsworth Jr., is the mayor of the Lake and Peninsula Borough.
ALASKA PROJECTS REJECTED BY PERMITTING PROCESS
Projects Abandoned
Quartz Hill: In 1987, U.S. Borax abandoned $100 million+ molybdenum project (almost $180 million in today’s dollars). After the EIS evaluation, EPA would not authorize the tailings system that the company said was necessary to develop the project.
Ryan Lode: In 1996, the owner of the Fort Knox Gold Mine acquired the Ryan Lode property and began the process to permit gold mining. After an initial public meeting, the company realized that the environmental and neighborhood protections that the agencies would require made the project uneconomic to develop. As a result, the company abandoned plans to mine the property and reclaimed the site.
AJ Mine: Echo Bay Mining Company’s attempt to re-open the historic Alaska Juneau Gold Mine near Juneau was dropped after the agencies refused to authorize a tailings site in the Sheep Creek valley. The company began the process for submarine tailings disposal, but shut down the project for economic reasons before the agencies decision became known.
Projects Changed
In addition to those above, there are many other projects where the agencies refused to permit the company’s initial design, but the company was able to re-design the mine to meet agency approval. Two out of numerous possible examples are below:
Pogo Gold Mine: State and federal agencies denied the company’s request to approve an exploration shaft, and then took issue with the company’s initial mine design. Both times, Teck (now TeckCominco) was able to redesign the project to gain agency approval.
Illinois Creek Gold Mine: The company’s initial plans called for a road to the mine. It re-designed the project to be a fly-in facility to mitigate agency and public concerns.
