Stop Pebble Mine

Have you even been to Alaska let alone the Bristol Bay area? Or are you a good little soldier?

 

Do you have any idea on how many jobs Pebble Mine would offer to Alaskans? or do you know how hard it is to live off the land? Alaskans need Pebble Mine and the US needs an economic boost. Maybe you should educate yourself by taking a trip up here to Alaska. I think everyone here would understand that without mines like Pebble there would be no Prii.

 

Do you have any idea how many fishing jobs would be lost? How many communities will be deprived of a food source? Or how many tourism jobs will be lost? Has the cost of the expected environmental damage been factored in to the profit estimates?

 

I worked at the Goldstrike mine in Nevada for 14 years. Barrick invested 100 million dollars before the first ounce of gold was produced. http://barrick.com/GlobalOperations/NorthAmerica/GoldstrikeProperty/default.aspx

Just as some car companies produce gas guzzlers and some produce environmentally aware cars, you can research the history of Gold companies to see their environmental track records.
(if you look at Barrick's record, notice how often they buy up a less reputable company, then get sued for damage done before the purchase)

 

I feel certain that Rio Tinto would gladly move the gold out of the area.

 

Care to share? There is a great deal of FUD involved with this campaign to stop the project from even getting to the permit stage.

 

You started the thread... it is incumbent on you to to provide the reasoning for the statement. Basic forum etiquette.

 

So, no facts then?

(You should decide if you are saving a fishery or a plant)

 

I looked into it. I sent a message through NRDC. I get notices from them and The Center for Biological Diversity or Defenders of Wildlife. Thanks for posting.

 

Isn't the NRDC running misleading ads that seem to be about improving your mileage, but take you to a proposal to force other people to buy certain cars?

 

NRDC is one of the more aggressive environmental organizations and I do not always agree with their ads or campaigns but working in and environmental field I see first hand how these projects, such as Pebble Mine, work out in the real world beyond the environmental review process. Even with permits and CEQA NEPA, EIR's and all the other reviews, bad stuff still happens when you develop natural areas. Mines tend to be especially destructive and as they say, sh^t happens. Then what? Ohh but there is always mitigation credits to cover their butts but that is a whole 'nother boondoggle IMO.

 

Salmon follow their noses (and brain tickles), not GPS.

If you divert that section of river properly, at worst you affect only the salmon that spawned at that particular location. The rest will move up. Mother Nature often diverts rivers and the salmons have evolved to cope.

It all depends on how the waste is handled. Retention pond. Gold mining will have lots of mercury.

With the current price of gold, I'm confident proper measures will be placed, as sufficient profit margins to make sure Nature is OK.

The bad mines out there are the coal mines that exist on the tiniest of profit margins. Concentrate on those, not a new mine that will be compliant to all current regulations.

 

Funny word, that 'develop'. It's a euphemism full of hubris. Natural areas already ARE developed, with a depth and diversity not found in so-called 'developed' areas like cities or...in this case, mines. It reminds me of old maps that said 'unimproved area' on vast tracts of old-growth forest. As if it could be improved.

 

However they didn't evolve to cope with mankind's habitat destruction and high volumes takes.....

Same can be said for oil drilling and look what happens.

There is concentrated effort to hold coal mines responsible for their problems. Trying to divert attention to those issues while "sneaking" in new mines does not solve the problems now and in the future. That is like pointing a finger and saying "I'm not so bad, they are worse". Bad development is bad development no matter who else is doing worse.

Until you run the river and count the number and quality of spawning sites I don't see how you can automatically assume a river diversion is ok. True mother nature does this on a regular basis but with all the obstacles salmonids face nowadays it is wrong to assume they will be just fine.

 

True but in my world development stands for human-centric infrastructure.

 

Mine too, sadly. I know you weren't taking my musings as personal criticism, but still...there's something quite wrong with the definition. It seems completely backwards. Humans don't 'develop' forests, they kill them. And then wipe their asses with it.