RE:RE:The New Sustainable Alaska PlanYou and the opponents of the mine are basing this on the belief that mining and fisheries can NEVER co-exist. Of which there is no proof. Unless you can show an environmental study of this particular situation, showing that pebble would likely destroy the fisheries in Bristol Bay, then all you have is a guess.
I'm sure there are examples of mines that polluted surrounding waters, but I'm sure there are more examples of ones that didn't. Basing your belief on mining disasters elsewhere would be like saying because fukushima happened, then all future nuclear power plants should be banned. But the truth is, there are hundreds of nuclear power plants all operating safely. In fact, one nuclear plant that was much closer to the centre of the tsunami suffered no damage at all. And you can bet pebble will be built with the utmost care to no damage nearby waters. Because that has been the biggest hurdle and nothing else could shut the mine down faster.
If you were the management at NAK, would you spend over a decade of your time and billions of dollars to build a mine and be careless enough to let it pollute nearby waters when you know all your enemies are waiting to pounce on that? No you wouldn't, you would make sure it doesn't happen!
calenderj wrote: No one knows which direction this project will ultimately take.It is definitely the most interesting project in North America,just based on the sheer size and potential.
But,don't overestimate its importance to the State,unless they change the income tax laws for mining corporations.
Local economies would be the beneficiaries of any activity from a local mine.
Since the local economy is that of Bristol Bay,and the fishing industry pays a higher State tax rate than any mining activity would,and Bristol Bay is a fishing town,not a mining one,which way do you ultimately think the State will have to lean?