Coal and Cook Inlet.
It seems as though every time we turn around, somebody somewhere wants to mess with salmon fisheries in Alaska. There’s Anglo-American and Northern Dynasty who are trying to put a huge open pit gold mine at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, and now the Chuitna Coal project.
Resource development is inevitable in the 49th state. It means jobs and a sustainable economy. An Alaska without development would be a very very different place. But the question of where and how we allow that development to take place is the cause of seemingly endless battles.
The bottom line is that no matter how rich a fossil fuel resource, or a metal resource is, there will be an end. These resources are finite. But Alaska is fortunate to also have natural resources that are potentially infinite, if properly managed. I’m speaking of our wild seafood, and our wildlife on land and in the water. The allure of the unspoiled wilderness, and the chance to see whales, polar bears, walrus, bears, wolves, eagles, caribou and more draws visitors from all over the world. Our exports of wild salmon, crab, herring, shrimp, halibut, oysters, scallops and more are the primary source of the country’s clean, wild seafood.
Cook Inlet is a body of water that most residents of the state can see on a daily basis without too much trouble. This summer we had an eye-opening scare when Mt. Redoubt, a volcano near the Inlet was erupting and threatened to wipe out the Drift River oil storage facility which was built between the volcano and the water. We realized that we are completely unprepared to handle this kind of threat, or clean-up of any spill that might happen in these waters.
Cook Inlet is an incredible place, teeming with fish and the subspecies of beluga whale that is now considered “critically endangered.” I’ve had the good fortune of being able to fly and land on some of the remote beaches on the opposite shore from Anchorage, and down toward Mt. Augustine, another volcano in the long chain that reaches out into the Aleutian Islands. A couple dozen miles from Alaska’s largest city, you feel like you might as well be the only person on Earth, and you look around and become part of a scene that has been there before mankind ever set foot there, or cut down a tree, or built a coal mine.
But PacRim Coal, a Delaware-based company backed by Texas investors, is proposing one of the largest strip mines in the country on a tributary of the Chuitna River, below. If the Alaska Department of Natural Resources approves the project, it will be the first time the state has allowed a mining company to directly mine through a known salmon-bearing stream.
Heilman and others are spearheading local opposition to the mine. “We’re trying to protect our homes, our lifestyles, and the fish and game that we depend on,” [Judy]Heilman says. “The vast majority of people in Beluga and Tyonek oppose the mine because it will destroy our way of life. If we don’t recognize this unique and fragile area as unsuitable for coal strip mining, no place in Alaska will be safe.”
The rest of this great article can be found HERE. It profiles Judy Heilman, also known as “Granny Beluga.” She makes her home on the Chuitna River that is also home to all five species of Alaska salmon. She’s helping the community raise their voices and act against forces larger than themselves to protect Alaska’s biggest renewable resource for future generations.
[map courtesy of Cook Inletkeeper]
strip mine – are they nuts?
Fight it! You cannot turn back the clock on damage from mining that affect fish, water, scenery and air quality. This is not worth it.
Please Alaska, our nation, and the world, fight this.
This really needs to be stopped. As with Bristol Bay, some of the best fishing, both commercial and personal, occur in Cook Inlet. Not only salmon, but halibut in the lower Inlet. Why RISK it!!!! For money??? For a few jobs, most of which won’t even go to Alaskans??? The long term chance for ruination is not worth it. Not for the fisheries, not for the environment, and not for the economy.
Strip mining? In Alaska? Will the greed never stop? In Kentucky, strip mining ruins water, takes down mountain tops and leaves land unusable, in spite of what the mining companies say. Boulders come crashing down and hit homes below. Wells are not drinkable. Wild life disappears. The salmon would not have a chance. Strip mining is something that should not be allowed.
If they strip mine I will have to strip theirs.
We need to make some kind of law that their should be no more drilling or mining in Alaska. These resources can be depleted in a matter of years and the damage done to the flora, fauna, fish and fresh water is irreplaceable. So, NO to ALL developmental tapping into Alaska. These people are NUTS! No amount of money or jobs is worth the loss of the wild life and landscape and fresh water.
This just angers me to no end. There is NO such thing as safe mining.
If there is an example to be found where a mining company has lived up to its grand promises of restoration, I will be astonished. Our regulators keep pretending that these grab-the-money-and-run corporations are entitled to a presumption of good faith, and the corporations keep proving with their cartoonish studies and irresponsible actions that good faith is not even in their vocabulary. Not only does this project need to be stopped, but any regulators who have defended it or allowed it to move closer to reality need to be purged from our payroll. They either don’t understand what it is that we are paying them to do or their services have been bought by a higher bidder. Either way, they need to be off the public payroll. Permanently.
How do you make people understand how fragile the eco-system to life as we know it?
system (is) to
duh
The worst thing about mining is the acid discharge that will continue decades after the mines have been emptied of all useable material. The strip mining does look ugly but can be fairly easily addressed. The acid drainage, however, is a real bugger as we have discovered downstream of pennsyltucky coal mines.
Oh wow, it makes me really sad to hear Alaska is under threat by by her own government and investors who know nothing about Alaska’s special enviroment. I know I’m preachin’ to the choir, however, why can’t these people learn from past mistakes? The same could happen at Bristol Bay what has happened in Yellowknife.
There are now two closed gold mines within the limits of Yellowknife,with in excess of some 521400 lbs of arsenic trioxide slowly leaching into the immediate environment. Today, the vast sores of arsenic-contaminated waste stored underground at Giant represents a long-term enviromental threat at Great Slave Lake and no one really knows how to deal with the clean up problem or how much it will cost.
Giant Mine was operated by a series of owners over several decades, has been the source of particularly severe social and environmental impacts. There is high arsenic content in the ore, and in the early years of the mine, large quantities of arsenic were released into the air through the roasting process. The local First Nation people report that two children died as a result of drinking water melted from snow. There are still high arsenic concentrations in the soils of the area.
did you know:
•There is 79 tons of mine waste for every ounce of gold.
Read more: http://environmentalism.suite101.com/article.cfm/mining_creates_dirty_gold#ixzz0YCSwVUIT
I hope Alaskans can block this plan. Little of the profit will be seen by Alaskans but all the horror of the strip mine will be felt forever by this generation and all future generation of Alaskans. This is a lose-lose situation for your state and its people. I hope that ADNR thinks of the long-range effects of its decision and does not just see short-term $$$.
I must say that I don’t have much hope with the current administration in place. But I do have hope that the people can stand up to the administration and maybe you will get some better representation in 2010 that will care for the land and its future.
And coal itself is such a polluting fuel! A bad idea for the strip mine and a bad idea for using coal.
I read the whole story and sent the link to Rachel Maddow. Now if it only makes it through to her
This is devastating and unnecessary. I agree with FrankLINY, the eco-system is invaluable to us and the world in so many ways. Commerce MUST become more aware of the their harm. (I’m stopping here so I don’t use profanity/go on a rant.) Infuriating.
If there is an example to be found where a mining company has lived up to its grand promises of restoration, I will be astonished. Our regulators keep pretending that these grab-the-money-and-run corporations are entitled to a presumption of good faith, and the corporations keep proving with their cartoonish studies and irresponsible actions that good faith is not even in their vocabulary.
——————————————————————–
I completely agree with Desert Mudpup (#7). There isn’t a company out there that won’t rape the environment in order to maximize their profits. Unless, of course, there are federal and state GOVERNMENT regulations put in place to control them (take that, $arah). Even then, it’s often easier to ruin the environment now and deal with it later (see Exxon.)
I wish the energy companies would focus more on renewable power sources that may be less profitable in the short term but will be more sustainable in the long run.
About 8 years ago, I bought two condos in Park City, UT. When I first met with the real estate agent, she said don’t drink the water out of the tap. When I asked why, she said the chemicals used in mining from long ago.
Don’t foul your own nest, AK. Organize, educate and spread the news far and wide. Once you mess it up, it’s much harder to get it back.
AKM has a forum to do this with her Netroots connections. Let’s get to work.
See my previous comment posts for appropriate disclosures and disclaimers.
I haven’t much experience in the fossil fuel aspect of geology, that is what we call in the trade, soft-rock. I am rather a hard-rock type who focuses on exploration for mines like Pebble would be. So allow me a brief digression, Pebble is not actually a gold mine sensu strictu, rather it is a copper-gold porphyry. The copper in the prospect is worth 10 times the gold.
Back on topic. Believe it or not I am not speaking from a particularly partisan point of view when I say that I think opposing the mine is at least to some extent misguided. That is not to say I disagree in principle with the various objections and emotional responses already posted with more no doubt to come. Rather what I wish to point out is that the problem is not with mining per se but rather with the incentive to mine. While it is quite true that mining is a necessarily destructive process in certain respects, a little thought will make clear that it would not be profitable if natural resources were not “consumed” at rates that exceed our system’s ability to recycle them. Energy in various fossil storage forms of course cannot be recycled at all.
There are problems here on many levels. It is quite true that coal is a very dirty form of energy when used on a massive scale. They fly ash contains a wide range of pollutants, not just mercury. Coal contains a range of sulfer. At the present moment one of the largest producers of coal is Wyoming and their product has a relatively low sulfer content. But the sulfer and the CO2 and some other volatiles are not removed from the combustion products of coal and are released into the atmosphere. In US coal burning power plants environmental laws have been imposed that mandate power producers to “scrub” emmissions of fly ash. Unfortunately the law making was clumsy with respect to specifying how the fly ash itself must be handled.
It was claimed in one of the earlier comments that most of the production from this proposed mine would be sold to Asia, one can almost assume that would mean China. Anyone who has been just to Beijing would know that China’s power generation infrastructure is highly polluting. Considering that the Chinese have considerable reserves of coal themselves future market speculations for this project may be a bit unrealistic. But under the current state of affairs in the world, evantually, someone will buy whatever coal can be mined.
So the only effective way to stop the development of this mine is to remove the potential for profit. Arguments about preservation of the ecosystem have no truck with investors who crave their dividends. But if taxes, bonds, and any other form of fiduciary responsibility can be imposed such that the thing will not produce a profit, it can be killed. It is that simple.
The actual solution of course is no where near that simple because the system by which decisions are made as to what is in the “states” interestis corrupted.
Follow the money.
Alaskans should also take note of the fact that the company that is proposing this mining project is a Delaware Corp. That fact relieves them of almost all liability.
But now to the crux. Here is the bitter fact that stubs so many toes. The root cause of all of this depredation of the environment is us. The global population has more than doubled in my lifetime. Think about it. 1% growth per year in a population of 6 billion. That is 60 million people. The bigger the population is, the faster it grows. As long as the population of the world continues to grow, the incentive will exist to develop new resources, and the money will be available to buy the necessary approval.
In every isolated case where the local impacts of some profit making venture are pitted against global demand for resources, the locals will be steamrolled into oblivion. Until they manage to change the accounting system to include all of the secondary effects. And until we as a collective of individuals, take positive steps to control our own population, fighting over resources will never end.
So in summary, don’t fight the mine, it is a tangent. Fight the mind set.
Let’s hear what our gubernatorial candidates think about all this, eh?
Too bad everything flows downhill to $$$$!
Alaska–once the last place for healthy, sustainable wild salmon stocks. And we’re losing much of it–to overfishing, over dependence on hatchery fish/salmon ranching, mis-placed hydro-power, strip mines, toxic tailings, over-development of sensitive wetlands and waterfronts…
Thanks for the information, because sensible action can only follow with good information being shared.
Three cheers for a slow economy, because that’s the most effective way to keep this nonsense from proliferating.
People can eat fish–they can’t eat coal.
Anglo American again. Anglo American bought Konkola Copper Mines, together with Nchanga open pit in Zambia in 2000.
They pulled out after 22 months. That is how unreliable this comany is. I worked for Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines for 17 years. I was a Capital Accountant. Basically I was in charge of spliting the assets for the entire mine into separate entities.
I belonged to a division that was bought by Glencore and first Quantum, Previously known as Nkana Division now the division is known as Mopani Copper Mines Plc.
Konkola Division became Konkola Copper Mines. That is how much I know about this company now coming to Alaska. I would never trust them. They go in a place, sack out what ever little they can get and quit it, if they do not get the profits they need.
Here read it for yourselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/25/business/mining-giant-set-to-depart-from-zambia.html
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2205509.stm
Not only did they leave machinery unattended, but abandoned the operations, with fumes going accross people’s homes.
Zambia has the high rate of Tuberclosis, because of the polution from the mines.
If you want Polution in Alaska, allow these guys to start an open pit mines.
Nchanga Copper Mines.
Google this:
Anglo American,
Glencore
First Quantum.
They all flooded in Zambia, for the pork
I talk with experience. I have burried relatives and friends, due to breathing polluted air day in and out.
I have weak lungs because of being exposed to fumes for 17 years. Any type of smoke affects me, including cigarettes.
So those of you who are thinking profit, sit back and think about how many lives this development will take just to make that profit.
I may sound stupid, but it is the truth.
It just had to be a company backed by Texas investors, didn’t it? I wonder if any of them are named Bush?
so that wild AK salmon everybody is clamoring for…contaminated.
that AK fresh air & pristine postcard land…polluted.
that palin & other corrupt local government has shown the negative light on AK
how is the chamber of commerce spinning this?
I’m with SKY & weaver here.
Coal mining (regular, strip mine and mountaintop-removal), as has been conducted and continues to be conducted, is all about the $$$ with NO regard to the environment or to the workers and area residents.
I live in coal mining country in Appalachia and I’ve seen it first hand. It is UGLY.
@Krubozumo Nyankoye:
“So in summary, don’t fight the mine, it is a tangent. Fight the mind set.”
———————————-
You are correct. I would put it a bit differently but I think it shakes out the same.
We change our values and what we value when we need to…
and we need to.
The language in our state constitution which provides for resource management to benefit all of us is important. It is not necessarily profit which benefits all of us… it is sound management of all resources , in relation to each other, which will sustain us and our children. Changing the short term profit mind set to long term benfit mindset is going to be lots of work…
Rolling up sleeves…
Here we go…
#17 & 26
Yes, we do need to fight the mind set.
Make laws and regulations in Alaska that require not just bonds BUT actual $ that is banked at a rate that will cover ANY potential pollution, say 10%.
Tax the gross proceeds of the mine at a rate that puts it in line with the oil taxes we charge.
Demand base studies to be done on all resources before anything is done, water, air, fish habitat, wildlife, etc. Once we know what we have in HARD numbers, then demand it stays that way.
Working NOT to say no BUT yes UNDER OUR rules and regulations will either take the profit out of it OR force them to clean up their act.
Just shuffling resource mining to other countries does not make us good world citizens. Last I looked we use much more than our share of resources so we need to be responsible in gathering those supplies, whereever they come from.
It will take work and we need to get to it, even the dirty stuff.
Thanks akmuckraker. judy heilman is an alaskan hero, and she stands for something most alaskans support: clean water and healthy salmon. cook inlet coal for china? we get salmon habitat destruction, climate change and mercury in our fish and kids.
Didn’t they learn anything from the coal ash disaster in Tennesee?
Are they stupid or something?
Texas? I wonder if the relationship between the governor of Texas and your ex-governor had anything to do with this. I think it is disgraceful to risk the damage resulting from strip mining in this glorious area of your great state. It not only pollutes the water but the air you breathe. It would affect all living things; plant animal and humans. Fight against it. Tell Texas to go home and drill more oil wells.
@18 Krubozumo Nyankoye Says:
————————————————–
As always, your comments are very much on point. Unfortunately, the underlying mind-set that needs to be changed is very deep-seated and widespread. Because the world is so much bigger than any individual person, it is almost impossible to avoid believing that natural resources are fundamentally inexhaustible. Even in regions where some resources are in obviously short supply, it is easier for people to consider it a problem of transporting relief supply, rather than a fundamental limitation.
This gut-level belief in unlimited resources is why conventional economics considers the cost of extracted resources to be only the operational cost of extracting them. Which is why fossil fuels appear to be so much cheaper than renewable energy sources.
Anyhow, I guess I don’t think that the residents of Beluga, or of the whole state of Alaska, are likely to be able to substantially affect the global mis-pricing of fossil fuels in the short run (although, like all of us, they should do what they can).
In the short run, I think they need aerial and elevation shots of existing strip mines, and reports on the environmental damage that has been caused in the areas surrounding many sites. Strip-mining, like clear-cutting, does not have a sterling record of environmental sensitivity.
While I agree with your premise that a sufficiently rigorous regime of extraction taxes and environmental-damage bonds (sufficient to make the cost of extraction approximate the true cost to the state and people) might well kill the project as unprofitable, I think you agree that the chances of that happening are very small.
In the short run (i.e., the next couple of years), I think a PR appeal to emotion is in order. It is certainly not my impression that most resource-extraction organizations are easily swayed by public/political opinion, but — as you mention — the business case for this mine may be a little sketchy. If so, they may not be willing to commit to a full bore PR/lobbying campaign.
One can hope.
I am please that this thread has not died and that I have gotten at least 3 cogent responses.
#28 Alaska Pi Says:
Well I am very glad you are rolling up your sleeves. I am not in Alaska and probably never will be, but yes, we have to think long term instead of focusing solely on the next quarter’s dividend. In that context the only means that has an effect is to decrease demand. In the long term that equates to negative population growth. (Sorry for the torturous term).
#29 Just Had To Jump In Says
I agree to some extent with your ideas for defending the local environment, but your point about the more remote environment is very well taken. If we continue to consume at the same or even higher levels, yet constrain local production, we are simply inviting the unscrupulous to exploit resource dependent economies.It is a difficult problem.
#33 strangelet Says:
I essentially agree with you on every point but one, I think local action to impose stringent criteria for operations could be effective. It would require
the formation of a concensus.
I am well aware that is all fine and good to have rules respecting what can be done and how it should be done, but I am also aware that if they are not enforced, they may as well not exist.
I hope I have furthered the conersation.
ciao,