In article <g1on741utvub2v5ill3egf6vr41rp3j6v4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Fortenoy
wrote:
> bookburn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:24:32 -0800, Jan Flora <snowshoe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <n7oe749blqu935iq6gsmmo76eqcaakksr4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > bookburn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm seeing a lot of ads promoting opposition to Proposition 4 on
the
> > >> upcoming ballot, which is evidently about "shutting down" mining in
> > >> Alaska.
>
> I don't know where you are, but in Anc i'm seeing a lot more
> pro-4 ads than anti-4 ads. It's obvious who is spending more.
>
> > >> I'd be interested if anyone has a point of view about this I could
> > >> learn from. I admit bias, because I'm not up for a triple digit
> > >> mining job or live, in a bush area where jobs are scarce, or see
the
> > >> need to extract minerals, now at least. Should we accept what
Native
> > >> leaders in the ads say about living with mine operations?
>
> Whatever your personal self-interest, Pebble would be a huge
> economic impact to Alaska. Bigger than the oil pipeline
> construction, but not as big as Prudhoe Bay. Bigger than the
> fish & timber extraction industries combined.
>
> > >I'd be all for the Pebble Mine if it can be done without tra****ng the
> > >place. I'd like to work over there. But the EVOS SCOTUS decision just
> > >let cor****ations off the hook for environmental damage, and that
changes
> > >everything.
>
> Jan, you know better. Is that a cheap shot, or just an
> uninformed comment? The SC ruled on Exxon's PUNITIVE damages in
> light of Maritime law. That's the law that has jurisdiction,
> and it says punitive damages can't exceed compensatory. You can
> criticize the maritime laws, but the Supremes were right in
> their interpretaton.
>
> Pebble is not in the ocean and is subject to state statute, not
> maritime law.
>
> Being dependent on ****pping even for food, it would cost us a
> lot for ****ppers to have to bear unlimited punitive liability.
>
> You also know that Exxon paid COMPENSATORY damages to the
> fishermen & others many many years ago. The SC decision was
> about PUNITIVE damages. It's legit to ask why the fishermen,
> rather than the state, should get any of that.
Full disclosure: which oil company do you work for?
>
> > >As a former small scale gold miner, I'm pro-mining. I've seen it done
> > >the right way. (One of my buds in Chicken won a national award for
the
> > >reclaimation work he did on his claims. He also fixed an ugly mess
that
> > >the old-timers left behind, while reclaiming his ground.)
>
> Ft. Knox is also being done with care to the environment. When
> the reclamation is done, the habitat will have actually been
> improved.
I liked Fish Creek the way it was, before they tore down the old cabins
and the bucketline dredge and clearcut the nice birch trees there. (My
prospecting class from UAF went there on a field trip, right before they
tore everything down.)
>
> > Nobody seems interested in the history of mining in other states or
> > Pebble's track record. I think it was a Canadian company that mined
> > in, was it, Idaho or Montana, leaving the place a ruin.
>
> Pebble doesn't have a track record, since it hasn't been mined
> yet. We do know Pebble is more valuable economically to the
> state, as a whole, than the Bristol Bay fishery. But ND hasn't
> presented their plan yet, so it's premature to bash it.
You can't eat gold. Our red salmon fishery in the bay feeds an awful lot
of people.
>
> Ft. Knox is an example of open-pit mining done right. Ditto for
> Red Dog. Whatever happened 100 years ago in Montana doesn't
> matter here & now, any more than what commercial fisherman did
> to Alaska in the 1930s.
Actually, there's some real ugly stuff going on in Wyoming right now, in
the oil & gas fields. We've met a number of ranchers who have had their
groundwater destroyed, fields taken over by pipelines and one gal who
had a sinkhole appear under her house and the house was destroyed.
|
