On Jul 14, 3:25=A0pm, Fortenoy wrote:
> bookb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:24:32 -0800, Jan Flora <snows...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
>
> > >In article <n7oe749blqu935iq6gsmmo76eqcaakk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > bookb...@[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. =A0It's obvious who is spending more.
>
> > >> I'd be interested if anyone has a point of view about this I could
> > >> learn from. =A0I 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. =A0Should we accept what
Nat=
ive
> > >> leaders in the ads say about living with mine operations?
>
> Whatever your personal self-interest, Pebble would be a huge
> economic impact to Alaska. =A0Bigger than the oil pipeline
> construction, but not as big as Prudhoe Bay. =A0Bigger 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
chang=
es
> > >everything.
>
> Jan, you know better. =A0Is that a cheap shot, or just an
> uninformed comment? =A0The SC ruled on Exxon's PUNITIVE damages in
> light of Maritime law. =A0That's the law that has jurisdiction,
> and it says punitive damages can't exceed compensatory. =A0You 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. =A0The SC decision was
> about PUNITIVE damages. =A0It's legit to ask why the fishermen,
> rather than the state, should get any of that.
>
> > >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
tha=
t
> > >the old-timers left behind, while reclaiming his ground.)
>
> Ft. Knox is also being done with care to the environment. =A0When
> the reclamation is done, the habitat will have actually been
> improved.
>
> > Nobody seems interested in the history of mining in other states or
> > Pebble's track record. =A0I 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. =A0We do know Pebble is more valuable economically to the
> state, as a whole, than the Bristol Bay fishery. =A0But ND hasn't
> presented their plan yet, so it's premature to bash it.
>
> Ft. Knox is an example of open-pit mining done right. =A0Ditto for
> Red Dog. =A0Whatever happened 100 years ago in Montana doesn't
> matter here & now, any more than what commercial fisherman did
> to Alaska in the 1930s.
I've been to King Salmon and ****nek. You won't find anyone there in
favor of Pebble. I've also been to OTZ, where there are an awful
bunch of new vehicles driving around town- courtesy of NANA.
I am bothered when NANA comes out and says vote against 4 because it
protects the land. This is a little hard to swallow where pollution
protects the land.
What does concern me is the possibility of a huge polluted reservoir
sitting on the headwaters of several major salmon streams and Lake
Iliamna.
There is some relevance to past mining practices and what is being
proposed at Pebble. There's a huge hole in Butte Montana that has
water so toxic in it that birds get acid burns when they land on it.
I want to know what if anything is going to be done to prevent birds
landing on similar reservoirs at Pebble. And face it, the
environmental record of similar sized open pit mines isn't all that
good. I'm not sure we can trust government to properly watch over
this project. Murky wanted mixing zones and did everything in his
power to defang DEC and fish and feathers.
Whats wrong with wanting clean water? Doesn't Pebble think they can
engineer their way around prop 4? Or are they trying to do it cheap
and dirty?
|
