Full Version: One the biggest gold mines in the world
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology > [A] Environmental Debate
Alaska is sitting atop one of the largest Gold mines in the world- with a possible much larger enviromental impact than any other resource extraction concern in the nation. It is huge- the tailings alone will total 3 billion tons!
It is intresting to me, because it is pretty much happening under the radar- this is far larger than ANWR- in a area that is much prettier, has more wildlife year around, and a thriving tourist industry. The salmon industry alone is massive, with tons of the alaska wild salmon you may find on your table coming from this area.
Here is a very detailed story on this find:
http://www.adn.com/front/story/5680779p-5613066c.html
Why do you think the enviromental lobby has not jumped all over this?"
Do you think that this developement is good or bad and why?
It is intresting to me, because it is pretty much happening under the radar- this is far larger than ANWR- in a area that is much prettier, has more wildlife year around, and a thriving tourist industry. The salmon industry alone is massive, with tons of the alaska wild salmon you may find on your table coming from this area.
Here is a very detailed story on this find:
http://www.adn.com/front/story/5680779p-5613066c.html
Why do you think the enviromental lobby has not jumped all over this?"
Do you think that this developement is good or bad and why?
Why do you think the enviromental lobby has not jumped all over this?
The environmental lobby has, in recent years, tried to improve its image. Whilst there are always going to be factions that are anti-everything, respectable environmental lobbyist understand that a balance between economic development and maintain the ecology and general environment must be struck.
Mines do not HAVE to be very bad for the environment. They can be well managed and it looks like this particular development will bring economic benefits to the local community. The largest problem with gold mining is its heavy use of mercury, which, if allowed to contaminate the local water supplies, will devastate fish stocks (and hurt people who eat the fish). This is the largest potential hazard, but I should imagine that US regulations are quite stringent on mercury use.
I think the environmental lobby will wait to see how the plans proceed, before deciding whether to alert the press.
Do you think that this developement is good or bad and why?
If the local people benefit overall and the environmental impacts are well managed then it look good. Alaska is very big, so I don't think a mine here or there will destroy it too much..
The environmental lobby has, in recent years, tried to improve its image. Whilst there are always going to be factions that are anti-everything, respectable environmental lobbyist understand that a balance between economic development and maintain the ecology and general environment must be struck.
Mines do not HAVE to be very bad for the environment. They can be well managed and it looks like this particular development will bring economic benefits to the local community. The largest problem with gold mining is its heavy use of mercury, which, if allowed to contaminate the local water supplies, will devastate fish stocks (and hurt people who eat the fish). This is the largest potential hazard, but I should imagine that US regulations are quite stringent on mercury use.
I think the environmental lobby will wait to see how the plans proceed, before deciding whether to alert the press.
Do you think that this developement is good or bad and why?
If the local people benefit overall and the environmental impacts are well managed then it look good. Alaska is very big, so I don't think a mine here or there will destroy it too much..
Here is more information as the second part of the story:
http://www.adn.com/front/story/5684300p-5616801c.html
The pics are really great BTW-
I bet that this turns into a major issue in the next couple of years- the size of this thing is monstrous- the small part of the claim is 699 square miles!
You will be able to say "Hey, we debated this issue on AD before it was an issue LOL
I am very wary personally of this- though I am a big supporter of developement- the size of this thing is mind boggling- and that is what scares me- a 3 billion ton tailing pond? Wow!
http://www.adn.com/front/story/5684300p-5616801c.html
The pics are really great BTW-
I bet that this turns into a major issue in the next couple of years- the size of this thing is monstrous- the small part of the claim is 699 square miles!
You will be able to say "Hey, we debated this issue on AD before it was an issue LOL
I am very wary personally of this- though I am a big supporter of developement- the size of this thing is mind boggling- and that is what scares me- a 3 billion ton tailing pond? Wow!
Do you think that this development is good or bad and why?
The Bush administration criticized Tiffany in March in response to an ad the jeweler put up on the Washington Post. Their smug response:
The mountaintop removal technique in mining was exempted from the Surface Mining and Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Mountaintop removal employs heavy equipment and TNT to remove several hundred feet off the peak and cache the debris into valleys. There aren't a lot of mountains in the Anchorage Daily News pictures but I wonder how deep Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. will have to dig (probably as deep as it takes to mine all the gold/copper), will the debris be relocated/dumped elsewhere, will the Mulchatna River be redirected, the Iliamna Lake drained? From a Dynasty report:
Where will 4,380,000,000 tons of debris get shuffled to for six decades? After Dynasty has all the riches it can have is it under obligation to refill the pits? And if it does refill the pits and goes about it in a sloppy manner, can they be held accountable or pack their machinery and wham, bam, thank you Iliamna?
To top it off I have no faith this administration will enforce EPA standards. In Without a Doubt article Suskin wrote:
I would have serious reservations about a mining project of this magnitude under a Clinton administration. I don't think we can take a chance on the the environment, the local business, under a Bush administration.
The Bush administration criticized Tiffany in March in response to an ad the jeweler put up on the Washington Post. Their smug response:
QUOTE
Mark Rey, an undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture, said the letter signed by Tiffany's chief executive was filled with errors, though he declined to say what they were.
"I'm guessing this ad in The Washington Post cost upwards of $50,000,'' said Rey, director of the administration's forest policy, in a telephone interview. "For $49,999.63 less, they could have sent us this letter and given their customers a discount on their products.''
"I'm guessing this ad in The Washington Post cost upwards of $50,000,'' said Rey, director of the administration's forest policy, in a telephone interview. "For $49,999.63 less, they could have sent us this letter and given their customers a discount on their products.''
QUOTE
Officials with New York-based Tiffany, a 167-year-old company whose name is synonymous with fine jewelry, stood by the contents of the open letter and called for reform in federal mining policy.
"It is by no means the first time that we have communicated with appropriate government officials about our desire to see precious metals and gemstones extracted in environmentally and socially responsible ways,'' the company said. "Our record on that score goes back nearly a decade.''
"It is by no means the first time that we have communicated with appropriate government officials about our desire to see precious metals and gemstones extracted in environmentally and socially responsible ways,'' the company said. "Our record on that score goes back nearly a decade.''
The mountaintop removal technique in mining was exempted from the Surface Mining and Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Mountaintop removal employs heavy equipment and TNT to remove several hundred feet off the peak and cache the debris into valleys. There aren't a lot of mountains in the Anchorage Daily News pictures but I wonder how deep Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. will have to dig (probably as deep as it takes to mine all the gold/copper), will the debris be relocated/dumped elsewhere, will the Mulchatna River be redirected, the Iliamna Lake drained? From a Dynasty report:
QUOTE
Northern Dynasty is committed to engineer, permit, construct and operate a long life, large-scale, open pit, gold-copper-molybdenum mine at the site. An extensive work programto realize this has commenced. Last March, the company completed a C$22 million financing (at $8 per share) which makes it possible to rapidly advance the Pebble project towards the completion in 2005 of a Bankable Feasibility Study and to meet the requirements of an Environmental Impact Statement. On basis of current evaluations, the Pebble’s optimum milling capacity ranges from a 90,000 to 200,000 tonnes per day operation over a 30 to 60 year mine life.
Where will 4,380,000,000 tons of debris get shuffled to for six decades? After Dynasty has all the riches it can have is it under obligation to refill the pits? And if it does refill the pits and goes about it in a sloppy manner, can they be held accountable or pack their machinery and wham, bam, thank you Iliamna?
To top it off I have no faith this administration will enforce EPA standards. In Without a Doubt article Suskin wrote:
QUOTE
As Whitman told me on the day in May 2003 that she announced her resignation as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency: ''In meetings, I'd ask if there were any facts to support our case. And for that, I was accused of disloyalty!'' (Whitman, whose faith in Bush has since been renewed, denies making these remarks and is now a leader of the president's re-election effort in New Jersey.)
I would have serious reservations about a mining project of this magnitude under a Clinton administration. I don't think we can take a chance on the the environment, the local business, under a Bush administration.
The price of gold has hit $450/oz in the fall of 2004. It has been rising strongly for several years. How high will it go? This is not just a rhetorical question - it is the heart of the gold business, and it is always a/the gamble. They wait for decades while prices are low, then they gear up for production when gold is in high demand.
The Prudhoe oil field production (Alaska's primary income) peaked in 1988. By the early 1990s Alaska entered a period of chronic, progressive socio-economic crisis. Just before recent events in the Middle East sent oil prices through the roof, the Alaskan body politic was preparing for a third attempt to reform the State revenue system. They were anguishing whether to alienate the voters with an income tax, or offend business with a sales tax.
But the rising oil prices meant they suddenly appeared to have lots of money, and sabotaged the fiscal reform initiative. Now, the leadership knows they have a short window in which to try to establish sustainable income. The last time they miscalculated, in the early 1980s, Alaska lost between 1/4 and 1/3 of it's entire population. Imagine that, in say California or Texas...
First, our national shift to a more conservative posture has weakened the environmental lobby broadly. This is more dramatically so, in Alaska.
Second, the lobby already has a full plate of issues - again, notably so in Alaska.
Third, though the Pebble deposit numbers can seem awe-inspiring, they are a drop in the bucket, compared to other prizes the environmentalists would like to win in Alaska.
Building the 86 mile road and creating an economic center in the Iliamna area would promote long-standing development goals - beyond the Pebble deposit. At the same time, similar development-concepts are not (yet) being discussed within larger, higher-priority environmental districts. There are other immense gold deposits, located in the midst of biomes orders of magnitude larger & wilder than the Pebbles-environs, and necessitating far more serious compromises of nature.
The corridor between Lake Clark and the Iliamna Refuge (where the new road and mine will be) was a deliberately selected transportation route, during the National Land Claims Settlement process in Alaska. The goal is to tie Cook Inlet to the coastal southwest districts lying north of the Alaska Peninsula.
Environmentally speaking, Pebbles is the lessor of the obvious encroachment options. It is well-supported by the immediate and prospective local/remote communities it would impact. Alaska needs reliable income, and failure to achieve it could well have adverse consequences for environmental resources throughout the State.
The Prudhoe oil field production (Alaska's primary income) peaked in 1988. By the early 1990s Alaska entered a period of chronic, progressive socio-economic crisis. Just before recent events in the Middle East sent oil prices through the roof, the Alaskan body politic was preparing for a third attempt to reform the State revenue system. They were anguishing whether to alienate the voters with an income tax, or offend business with a sales tax.
But the rising oil prices meant they suddenly appeared to have lots of money, and sabotaged the fiscal reform initiative. Now, the leadership knows they have a short window in which to try to establish sustainable income. The last time they miscalculated, in the early 1980s, Alaska lost between 1/4 and 1/3 of it's entire population. Imagine that, in say California or Texas...
QUOTE
Why do you think the enviromental lobby has not jumped all over this?
First, our national shift to a more conservative posture has weakened the environmental lobby broadly. This is more dramatically so, in Alaska.
Second, the lobby already has a full plate of issues - again, notably so in Alaska.
Third, though the Pebble deposit numbers can seem awe-inspiring, they are a drop in the bucket, compared to other prizes the environmentalists would like to win in Alaska.
QUOTE
Do you think that this developement is good or bad and why?
Building the 86 mile road and creating an economic center in the Iliamna area would promote long-standing development goals - beyond the Pebble deposit. At the same time, similar development-concepts are not (yet) being discussed within larger, higher-priority environmental districts. There are other immense gold deposits, located in the midst of biomes orders of magnitude larger & wilder than the Pebbles-environs, and necessitating far more serious compromises of nature.
The corridor between Lake Clark and the Iliamna Refuge (where the new road and mine will be) was a deliberately selected transportation route, during the National Land Claims Settlement process in Alaska. The goal is to tie Cook Inlet to the coastal southwest districts lying north of the Alaska Peninsula.
Environmentally speaking, Pebbles is the lessor of the obvious encroachment options. It is well-supported by the immediate and prospective local/remote communities it would impact. Alaska needs reliable income, and failure to achieve it could well have adverse consequences for environmental resources throughout the State.
Why do you think the enviromental lobby has not jumped all over this?"
good question. I would think that if a large gold mine is OK, some oil wells would be just as acceptable. So where are these environmentalists?
Do you think that this developement is good or bad and why?
I have no personal use for gold, precious metals, diamonds, etc. Not in to any of the bling bling, don't even wear a wedding band. My hang dog, yes dear demeanor is proof enough that I am married.
But industry does need gold, so if there is a need for the product and the state can benefit from it, and the enviroment can take the hit, go for it. It will be worth observing, tho, to see if for once a mining concern can be held to the same environmental standards as the petroleum industry.
good question. I would think that if a large gold mine is OK, some oil wells would be just as acceptable. So where are these environmentalists?
Do you think that this developement is good or bad and why?
I have no personal use for gold, precious metals, diamonds, etc. Not in to any of the bling bling, don't even wear a wedding band. My hang dog, yes dear demeanor is proof enough that I am married.
But industry does need gold, so if there is a need for the product and the state can benefit from it, and the enviroment can take the hit, go for it. It will be worth observing, tho, to see if for once a mining concern can be held to the same environmental standards as the petroleum industry.
QUOTE
...if a large gold mine is OK, some oil wells would be just as acceptable. So where are these environmentalists?
Hmm ... perhaps sitting in front of their TVs, watching events in the world's oil patch?
Indications are, we could sure use a few new oil wells. The trick is to get the resources we need, without trampling what we'd like to keep pristine. And, to plan for the day when the raw materials we're now dependent on won't be available in the needed quantities.
QUOTE
It will be worth observing, tho, to see if for once a mining concern can be held to the same environmental standards as the petroleum industry.
Personally, I hope not to see a forest of oil rigs on the ANWR coastal plain. I hope to walk the thing with a backpack ... before that might happen. But I also see that oil extraction has not run the animals off, over at Prudhoe Bay. Indeed, the oil companies do appear to have gotten the message.
It might be because mining is overshadowed these days by the oil industry, but mining has been very progressive in Alaska. Back in the 1960s, they were still using hydraulic mining for gold ... outlawed in California (and the rest of the brain-enabled world) a hundred years ago. The State essentially shut down it's highly popular Ma & Pa mining industry, by bringing in regulations and all that enviro-stuff. Thirty years ago.
Alaska is primarily powered by coal ... it's own. The main cities, the military bases, and the electrical grid are all fired by coal from the Usibelli Mines, alongside the Alaska Railroad tracks, just outside McKinley National Park. The Usibelli operation was an early leader in strip-mine restoration, and is today a model of responsible mine-management. Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc.
The Red Dog Mine, in the far northwestern Brooks Range wilderness of Alaska, is a case-study in modern mine creation & multi-interest regulation. Discovered & developed after the heyday of rip-snortin' mining had bit the dust, it is, like Usibelli, a high-profile example of how environmental and economic goals can be pursued together. Red Dog is one of the largest, most profitable and stable mines in the world today. Most people have never even heard of it ... which is probably saying something good. Red Dog Mine
Red Dog ... Environmental Stewardship
The Red Dog project was conceived & executed in a broad consortium-fashion, very much in the same way that the Pebble gold deposit is being approached. Those who would like to understand the process underway at Pebble, would do very well to study the history of Red Dog.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.