Bristol Bay Doesn’t Want Pebble Mine.
22 09 2009
It’s always nice when a poll backs up what you know, and proves that there are still things out there that aren’t even close. Nor should they be. What we found out today is that the residents of the Bristol Bay watershed don’t want the Pebble Mine. They think that clean water, and wild fish, and jobs that already exist, and subsistence are actually more important than the risk of mining.
Read the press release below and you will understand why Pebble Mine is a deal breaker for many voters. Anyone running for office in 2010 needs to pay close attention before they sell Bristol Bay down the river in favor of foreign mining interests.
Anchorage – A new poll released today finds an overwhelming majority of Bristol Bay residents strongly prefer their subsistence lifestyle to the promise of jobs at the proposed Pebble Mine.
The poll, which is the most in-depth survey of local Alaska Natives’ opinion on the Pebble Mine, found that 79 percent of respondents believe the mine, located in the headwaters of two of the region’s largest salmon-spawning rivers, would damage Bristol Bay’s wild salmon fishery – a key resource that many residents depend on for income and food.
“What Anglo American’s CEO told us when we met in London earlier this year was that if local communities did not want Pebble mine, then Anglo American would not build it,” said Bobby Andrew, spokesperson for Nunamta Aulukestai, a coalition of eight village corporations that commissioned the survey. “A majority of local people know the mine will pollute and destroy subsistence, commercial and sport fishing and adamantly oppose it.
“We are asking Anglo American to honor its promise and withdraw from the Pebble project,” Andrew said.
Andrew and the three other local Alaskans who met with Anglo American executives and shareholders earlier this year in London sent a letter today to the company’s CEO, Cynthia Carroll, along with the survey results. They asked her to adhere to promises she made in a private meeting that the company would abandon the Pebble project if local communities rejected it.
The letter dated September 22, 2009, stated: “Opposition to the mine is overwhelming and unwavering despite significant outreach efforts by Anglo American and Northern Dynasty over the years…. With that in mind, we ask you to keep your stated commitment to forego development of the Pebble mine given the ongoing community opposition.”
“We are not going to risk our subsistence way of life, which has sustained our families for generations, on the Pebble Mine,” said Lydia Olympic, an Igiugig native who joined the group that met with top company officials in London in April. “Mining is not the answer.”
“Sustainable development can only be based on our wild salmon, clean water, and renewable energy – not on a mine that will pollute our land and water with toxic waste,” Olympic said.
The poll released today was conducted by Anchorage-based Craciun Research, which sampled 411 Bristol Bay residents from six parts of the Bristol Bay region between May 18, 2009 and June 2, 2009. It was statistically drawn to get an accurate assessment of opinion in each of those areas: Alaska Peninsula, Lake Iliamna/Lake Clark, Nushagak Bay, Nushagak River, Togiak, and Kwichak Bay. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.8 percent.
Among the survey’s main findings:
· The vast majority of residents favored renewable energy development (94 percent), value-added fish packing (89 percent), and tourism that Alaska Native communities could be involved (82 percent) in over mining.
· Survey respondents agreed almost unanimously (97 percent) that maintaining subsistence-lifestyle resources and their subsistence lifestyle is important.
· Seventy-two percent of those surveyed reported that a significant part of their diet came from fish, game, berries and other subsistence sources.
· Only 8 percent of survey respondents supported the Pebble mine project, less than the one-third the number that support oil and gas drilling.
· The strongest opposition to the mine was in the Nushagak Bay area, but even in Iliamna-Lake Clark area, where local businesses benefit more from current exploration activities, 73 percent of survey respondents oppose the mine.
· A majority (78 percent) thought Pebble mine would damage commercial, guided or subsistence fishing.
· A majority of respondents agreed that most jobs created by the mine would go to outsiders, not locals.
· Few respondents thought that mining could be done without harming the environment.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Now if only the potiticians who approve such Earth shattering businesses would listen. Seems the almighty buck talks, and the environment walks (with a limp).
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 AM
So sweet that they actually think the mining company might keep their promise!!
If only the poll showed 100% against….
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 AM
No Pebble Mine.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:23 AM
I hope this matters, but I’m afraid the corporations will buy their way in through the politicians like they usually do.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Everytime Pebble Mine comes up I remember the college term paper I did for my geology class about the Aral Sea.
Look it up on Wikipedia if you want some sleepless nights.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:28 AM
I live in Spenard, down the street from the Hell’s Angel’s club house.
I saw a no Pebble mine sticker on the back of a member’s trunk. If even those guys are against this, then this mine not only must be stopped, it will be stopped.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 AM
The runoff from the Pebble Mine would devastate salmon runs, not to mention the environmental damage. How do they justify this land rape? They will lie, of course.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Good and smart step to opposing it. And good for the rural Alaskans making themselves heard.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:15 AM
I’ve met Lydia Olympic and she’s one women that I really respect. You go get ‘em girl!
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:19 AM
I’m reposting my comment on this article posted at anonymousbloggers:
I’m just not one to say we need to lock up all the resources for preservation into eternity – we do need and use gold and copper around the world in critical areas.
In my view, the risk of endangering Bristol Bay fisheries is not worth the benefits. We have already allowed a huge disaster to harm Prince William Sound, and we have let Cook Inlet be endangered with the complete lack of foresight of building an oil transfer terminal at the base of a volcano. BTW, when the Drift River location was being surveyed, Mt. Redoubt erupted and the surveyors were in need of rescue. Did this stop the building of the terminal? We know the answer to that one.
So here we go again – let’s endanger one more of Alaska’s irreplaceable
regions, which currently benefits everyone from local indigenous peoples to those around the world with its abundance of renewable resources. No, I do not agree that we should risk this jewel to mining.
Unfortunately the huge resources extraction companies are famous for spin, bribing the locals, and actually lying about the conditions in areas of damage, such as Prince William Sound. No, I do not agree that we should risk this jewel to another huge resource extraction company with no oversight.
I know that skilled jobs which pay well are hard to come by in rural Alaska. I know the locals / Alaska Natives have been promised many things by the Pebble Mine. However, I saw the complete corruption of the “local hire preference” first hand during the Exxon Valdez clean up efforts in Prince William Sound. The rules were bent constantly for out of staters, and locals were shut out on a regular basis for jobs they were to have hiring preference for. I lived in the 2nd largest staging port for the clean up, and this area had far more non Alaskans than Alaskans working the spill. The bottom line: VECO did not honor the Alaskan hiring preference but just did what they wanted and lied about it. No, I do not agree that we should risk this jewel to companies who can’t be forced to adhere to strict rules which have been agreed upon in advance.
There is a lot of money to be made by the nearest municipalities of size by supplying equipment and supplies to the mine. We have already seen the customer service side of these Alaskan municipalities toward the actual people who live in the Bush. So, is this money pouring in from remote Alaska to Dillingham, Anchorage, etc going to benefit the Bush and the people who live and work there? Is it going to improve the customer service attitude toward Bush residents? Is it going to improve needed infrastructure in a meaningful way for residents?
These companies do not self regulate and they don’t base profits on ethical practices. There are too many risks, and not enough benefits. The area in potential danger is irreplaceable. Bristol Bay is valued globally for its abundant renewable resources.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 AM
boodog” don’t they say they will clean it all up AFTER they have messed it up?
which is crap of course
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Let’s keep in mind that Steadfast Republicans will valiantly disregard polls- when it suits them.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Anglo-Americans in general have not had the most stellar history of keeping promises made to Native Americans. Let’s hope times have changed!
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Here’s a piece written by a professor of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences on Anglo American, one of the two companies which make up the Pebble Mine Project:
http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/600727.html
“While Anglo American has promised the Pebble mine won’t harm Bristol Bay’s rich salmon fishery, it is best to judge this promise in light of the impacts that other Anglo American mines have had on clean water and clean air…
…If Anglo American’s past performance is any indication, Alaskans should be wary. At Jerritt Canyon, a modern mine operating under well-established environmental laws, Anglo American’s assurances that it would maintain high environmental standards clearly were not met.
Alaskans will make up their own minds about Pebble, but they deserve to know the previous record of Anglo American, not just what its consultants want them to know. “
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:40 AM
My heart bleeds for the extractive mind sets..and when they..are at their last days..will they wish to see not a white hosp. wall and room..but instead, a window..looking OUT..over natural beauty, pure winds..fluttering leaves upon healthy trees..and clean mist..rising from the early morning valleys? Stand tall, all those who oppose the corporation..and gather pictures of ‘before and afters’..so that the message rings, evertrue..when corps. try for/get..their land grabs. Two pictures,,from every area..the assembled Mudflats readership can muster. Pictures..will capture the imagination..and..help build the resistence!! Beauty before us now, and desolation..for generations..After. Two pictures people..2!!!!
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Alaskans representing Bristol Bay residents, the commercial fishing industry and Alaska Native Village Corporations sent a letter in Oct 2008 to Cynthia Carroll, CEO of Anglo American:
http://eyeonpebblemine.org/wp-content/uploads/angloletter.pdf
“We appreciate your stated commitment towards transparency. Of particular interest to our organizations and businesses is your commitment that Anglo American “will not be associated with the development of a mine that damages Alaska’s Bristol Bay fishery and wildlife…”2 Given the economic and subsistence value of the Bristol Bay fishery, we are particularly interested in understanding Anglo’s track record, and the potential risks associated with mining activities and Anglo’s other resource development activities. For that reason, we ask that Anglo American reaffirm its commitment to transparency by supplying a full list and description of these 723 environmental incidences.”
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Lilybart Says:
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 AM
boodog” don’t they say they will clean it all up AFTER they have messed it up?
———–
Corporate defininition of cleanup: Removing all dead & floating marine life from poisoned seas, lakes and waterways with net (underground drinking water is up to individual suckas… oops, homeowners).
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:52 PM
The mine could be open for a hundred years or more-unless I missed a stated length of contract. The fishing in the area will be long gone-salmon follow the paths set by generations before them. The natives will lose their fishing rights due to frail salmon numbers. The land will never go back to it’s natural state, and areas farther away will be impacted by runoff and pollutants. Clean up would come too late, if ever.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:08 PM
#6, Ang at 10:28 AM -
In the Sagaya and Southcentral Foundation parking lots: numerous pro-Pebble bumper stickers. A sad statement.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:49 PM
I know nothing but what I read about the area. But if the people of the land say no to Pebble Mine; that’s good enough for me. They live there and see the day-by-day destruction.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:21 PM
No. They have said “No”. They mean it. Listen, and accept. Will this happen? I doubt it.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:38 PM
This issue has been discussed here before and I have commented, hopefully in a constructive way. There is an additional issue associated with another mine in the vicinity of Juneau whose name escapes me at the moment. That mine was given the go-ahead by a supreme court decision. Sad to say the odds are stacked against the people of Bristol Bay and in favor of corporate interests.
First a few perspective comments. If corporations are left to themselves to act responsibly then it is clear that their responsibility at least from their point of view is to their stock holders and management. Taking the example of Health Insurance Corporations, they daily make decisions to deny life saving care to policy holders in order to enhance profits. IOW they deliberately allow people to die. The profit motive of a mining company is no different, therefore they will do everything in their power to develop the mine if it can make a profit.
Although it may be “possible” given good planning, engineering and diligent management, to develop a mine with the minimum environmental impact, and avoid a catastrophic mistake that destroys fisheries, communities, etc. it can be depended upon that any corner that can be cut to enhance profits will be cut. What this means simply is that even given an excellent development plan and multiple layers of safeguards, without strict, vigilant and persistent enforcement by an objective overseer, such a plan will never be implemented or run according to its own stipulations. Moreover any oversight body can be corrupted. In an ideal world these considerations might be tractable. We do not live in an ideal world.
The force behind this project is simple, global demand for copper. Gold is worth more by weight but industrially insignificant by comparison. Copper is “the” best conductor of electricity and as such has no substitute. Any substitute would have an equal if not greater impact in the form of a resource exploitation elsewhere. To put some perspective to this issue I have seen citations to the effect that fully 1/3 of the world’s human population has no access to electricity. Recycling will not solve this problem as much of the copper used in infrastructure remains in service for decades. Eliminating pennies from the currency will not have a significant impact on demand for copper.
I could go on for a few more paragraphs painting how grim the picture is of resource demand versus maintenance of environmental quality. The fact is, however, that even the legitimate claim that this mine endangers magnificent and established ecosystems is somewhat tainted if the population of humans in Bristol Bay and environs is increasing at all. That population has an impact as well, just as does the global population increase. So at the notable Pogo comic strip cartoon from some decades past pointed out so eloquently, we have met they enemy and they are us.
There are other factors at play that may render the entire debate moot. Fish are quite sensitive to the temperatures of the water in which they live according to my primitive understanding. It may well be that in a decade or two the fisheries will be destroyed by increased water temperatures as a result of AGW. As I suggested in the previous paragraph, it may also be that overfishing will result in similar effects. This is not a hypothetical problem for a class room exercise, this is the real deal.
Many of you may be reasonably familiar with the concept of “peak oil”. Plainly stated it is the point at which the rate of discovery of new oil reserves falls behind the rate of exploitation of existing reserves. Peak copper was passed many years ago, and the same is true for a number of other commodities.
I don’t profess to have the wisdom or the knowledge to offer a throughgoing solution, on the contrary, I would suggest that lack of knowledge is one of our most urgent problems. Never the less, one thing seems logically compelling and that is if we are to accomplish the preservation of the environment and achieve sustainable living, the primary means of doing so is to slow the growth of demand and eventually stop it in its tracks.
As to practical suggestions I can only offer the following: Those opposed to the development of the Pebble Mine must come together and form a unified coallition that can apply their smaller resources to scrutinize the Pebble plan and criticize the weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Political action will also be required and having no expertise in that area I cannot say anything of substance. Further to that, any opposition must recognize that even a victory today of blocking the development of the mine will only forestall some future effort in the same direction. When the price of copper reaches $10 US/lb.
I have left out a lot of other factors that enter into all of this, it isn’t a simple problem, and there are no simple solutions. I am not advocating that the Pebble Mine project go forward because I am not familiar enough with the plans to say one way or the other if it is as sound as it can be made and as stated above, skeptical that even if it was it would be executed responsibly. But I am trying to raise the level of awareness here as to what the driving forces are.
There is basically only one thing that will stop the Pebble Mine, no profit.
We all should think about that in the context of our own lives when we try to act in a fashion that is responsible and considerate of the whole community.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:44 PM
mines….Anglo America …. China… Sarah Palin… I don’t know. There is always a reason for everything with her.
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:26 PM
“Anglo America” Is that an actual company name? Seriously?
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:29 PM
So, fewer than 34 out of 411 local people polled think the mine is a good idea.
Now, if we employ Strangelet’s Second Law of Opinion Polls — which is: lop off 10% both directions from “No Opinion”, because a lot of people who really should have no opinion refuse to admit it — I suspect we find 100% opposition.
Of course, the locals could be doing a NIMBY thing. Is there a compelling reason why the Pebble Mine should proceed despite the essentially unanimous opposition of its human neighbors?
Gold, copper, moly….. I’m pretty sure the US does not have a strategically compelling need for another source of gold or copper, just now. Molybdenum is a little harder to evaluate, because it keeps showing up as a critical component of all kinds of things. Still, I’d be inclined to the notion that the prospective miners should be obligated to prove to the public (that’s you, Alaskans) the necessity for this new source of moly. Rather than the notion that I, or you, should have to prove that it’s unneeded.
Full disclosure: I love Alaskan salmon. Everybody should love Alaskan salmon. I’m personally certain that I would be willing to forego a substantial number of molybdenum-dependent high-tech items, for an indefinite period of time, in order to ensure that there would continue to be Alaskan salmon.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:42 PM
@22 Nyankoye: I wrote my last comment before I completely read yours. Wasting my time is a habit I’ve had my whole life. ;>)
I continue to maintain that the US has no strategic need for a new source of copper, but I cannot deny your point that there is a strong financial argument for a new mine, or lots of new mines. The US is not the only consumer of copper.
Still, I do love salmon, as do my kids. AGW may spell the end of all fisheries, everywhere, but I’d still rather that be their fate, rather than heavy metal poisoning. Because it’s likely to take longer.
BTW, I am a big fan of your comments.
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 PM
What KN advocated in terms of a coalition to fight this worked in So Cal to beat back the world’s biggest mining company. It involved people from wealthy Malibu and poor Latinos and kids and grand parents. Plus a lot of work on everyone’s part. It took a few years with a lot of ups and downs, but we did it and so can you.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Anglo American? They named the company THAT?
Hey, no racist overtones in that corporate moniker.
Anglo American. Let’s start a competing firm and call it Afro American, with a subsidiary called Mexican American.
I can just see the board meeting where the guiding geniuses ok’d that one. Criminy.