Pebble Mine brings out the best and worst of Alaska

Here is a repeat of a long report from MineWeb.  I repeat it here in its entirety because I suspect this story is about events that will play out for a long time to come and which will have a profound impact on mining and society for even longer–regardless of how it turns out. 

If you do not like news reports, and you prefer the raw material, go to this link for the initiative in question.  It is all again about Pebble Mine and the future of Anglo American, the future of Alaska’s mining industry, and the power of the plebiscite. 

Here is the MineWeb story:

    The Alaska mining industry has launched a print, television and radio campaign to convince voters to reject the Alaska Clean Water Initiative, a ballot measure - originally aimed at the controversial Pebble gold project - with language so broad mining companies fear it will also impact operations at the Fort Knox and Pogo gold mines.

    The first initiative, Clean Water No. 1, prohibits large mines from releasing or discharging toxic chemicals in measureable amounts that could possibly affect human health or welfare, or any stage of the salmon life cycle. The State Supreme Court will decide if the issue will be placed on the November ballot.

    The second initiative, known as Clean Water No. 3, is viewed as a companion measure in the event that Clean Water No. 1 doesn’t survive the legal challenge, Renewable Natural Resources Coalition attorney Jeff Feldman told an Anchorage television station last month.

Karl Hannesman, a Pogo mine manager and president of the Council of Alaska Producers,  asserts that the initiative is so broad and so badly written that it will affect both current and future major meta mines on state, federal, university, borough and native lands. He contends the ballot measure will effectively prohibit the operation of any major metals mine, even if it complies with all current state and federal environmental regulations.

     As an example, the initiative would prohibit the operation of any major metal mine exceeding 640 acres if it generates any waste rock of tailings, according to Hannesman. However, backers of the initiative say it has a grandfather clause that will exempt mines that have all their permits.

    Art Hackney of the environmental NGO, the Renewable Resources Coalition, told the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that proponents have no desire to shut down existing mines. “That would only be the case if they are looking for permits, looking for expansion, if they were going to be putting at risk significant salmon spawning streams or streams used by human for drinking water. Most of these mines don’t fall into that classification.

    Steve Borell, Executive Director of the Alaska Miners Association, has advised that the ballot measure “undermines a fair and open environmental review and permitting process. …Each project should be judge on its own merits. But the anti-mining initiative would arbitrarily prohibit mining projects statewide and shut down mines without any environmental review process-and without any scientific evaluation of whether a mining project actually would harm the environment.”

    The trade group, Alaskans Against Mining Shutdown, has retained public relations and government affairs consultants to help battle the initiatives. Two native corporations, the Alaska Federation of Natives and the Association of ANCSA Regional Corporation Presidents, have sued the State of Alaska to prevent Clean Water No. 1 from appearing on the election ballot, claiming the Clean Water Initiative would prevent native corporations from developing their mineral resources.