1/2 + pics
The management of the Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC) is virulently opposed to the Pebble mine, but what do its members think, and can they over ride management? I haven't seen this written anywhere where the Pebble mine is discussed.
Do Native Alaskan's oppose the Pebble mine, or are they for the mine?
This is an important question that needs to be answered, and yet very little has been written about this, and so few people would have the information needed to answer that question.
The Pebble mine is opposed by the environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The Congressional House Committee on Natural Resources, believes that NRDC is working for the Chinese government. So the reasons they give for opposing the Pebble mine, and their opposition to the mine, is suspect, since what they are saying may be orchestrated by the Chinese.
China would not want the Pebble mine to be approved
Many other environmental groups agree with the NRDC and give multiple reasons, similar to NRDC's reasons, for opposing the Pebble mine. They sound very reasonable, but the only way to know if they are valid, is to examine them and see if they are based on false, or even deliberately misleading, 'facts'.
One of the 'facts' that is repeatedly brought up, is that the Alaskan Native tribes petitioned the EPA to shut down the Pebble mine. But how many petitioned the EPA to shut it down, vs, how many petitioned the EPA NOT to shut down the permitting process? That would give an indication of the true feelings of the native tribes.
Opponents of the Pebble mine warn of its danger to the salmon, and how harming the salmon would destroy a way of life of the Native Alaskan's that goes back thousands of years. Has that dependence changed, and are salmon even relevant any more to Native Alaskan's?
Alaska is very seismically active, and critics state that it is impossible for Pebble to build a dam for its toxic waste that would be able to withstand a large earthquake. They also bring up recent tailing dam failures as evidence that, even today, we have tailing dam failures. A Pebble tailing dam failure would destroy the Bristol Bay salmon spawning grounds. They also say that, even if the dam does not suffer a breach, that there is no way to stop the toxic water of the tailing waste, that the dam is holding in place, from seeping down to the ground water table.
Knowledge on what caused the failures and new techniques in building tailing dams, would let you decide for yourself if Pebble can build a safe tailing dam and if seepage to the ground water can be prevented.
The earthquake potential at the Pebble site has not been fully explained by either opponents, or by Pebble management. Knowledge of this would let you decide if there is earthquake endangerment for the Pebble mine.
Critics say that even after the Pebble mine is shut down, the toxic mine discard slurry held by the dam will be present for hundreds, or even thousands of years, and there is sure to be a breach of the dam during that long span of years, and that that, would be an environmental disaster.
At present, there is no effective way to render a giant tailing dam's toxic slurry benign, so that a spill would not have harmful effects. There are ways being devised to do this, which I explain, and you can decide if you think that they would be effective.
How important would the Pebble mine be to Anerica? It contains metals critical to our national defense. It also contains copper, which has multiple critical uses. Its importance to our country depends on the size of the deposit.
The Pebble site has only been partially explored, so we don't know how much ore the Pebble site actually contains. There could be extraordinarily more ore in the area, than is presently listed. Northern Dynasty does not discuss this anywhere, on how much more ore may be present at their site, and no analysts have discussed how much ore could be present in the Pebble deposit, or the surrounding area.
This can be calculated, and its importance can not be stressed enough. I go through the calculations, and they are easy to understand. The answer can tell you Pebble's importance to America, and it will give you an idea of what the stock can be worth.
Knowledge is Power
Knowing such things as the earthquake risk's to the Pebble mine, and what danger the toxic mine waste site poses, plus how Native Alaskan's view the Pebble mine, will give you knowledge that few other people have, and will give you a better understanding of the importance and prospects of the Pebble mine.
To start off, it is instructive to see
what is happening with the
Bristol Bay Native Corporation
In 1971 Congress established 12 Alaska Native Regional Corporations throughout the state of Alaska. Soon after, it added #13, for Non-resident Alaska Natives.
The Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC) is the only one of the 13 Native Corporations that is against the Pebble mine. The elected leaders of the BBNC are virulent antagonists of the Pebble mine, but it is the Alaskan Natives of the area that are the true people in charge of the corporation, through their privately owned shares of corporation stock. The present leaders can be voted out of office, or time limits can be placed on how long they can stay in office.
Last year Pebble Limited Partnership created an advisory board and asked people to join it, including Pebble opponents. So that Pebble could interact directly with them, listen to their concerns, and work with them in resolving them.
One of BBNC's board members announced that she was going to talk to the Pebble Partnership. She said that she was not for the Pebble mine at this time, but that it would only be fair to the people in her jurisdiction to find out what Pebble had in mind for the mine, and see if it would actually harm the Bristol Bay area.
BBNC's management were furious. They ostracized her. They got her neighbors to lecture her. They did this non-stop, and she finally resigned.
However, this made other people furious at the BBNC management. Two board members stepped forward and said that they were going to take her place, and talk to the Pebble Partnership, and that nobody was going to intimidate them into resigning.
In addition to that, Abe Williams, a BBNC shareholder, and fourth-generation Bristol Bay fisherman, wrote an opinions piece:
"Bristol Bay Native Corp. needs to rethink the region’s needs and its opposition to Pebble."
In it, he said what he found concerning, was "the recent censorship and bullying towards one of its own board members. They took this action not because someone changed their opposition to Pebble, but for accepting a seat on an advisory panel to have the option for meaningful engagement and understanding of the project by those who promote it."
"I have watched our leaders' performance for some time and wanted to raise my concerns in a forum where they could be heard, and I am not alone in expecting more from our leaders."
"We need to address issues that lead to the problems causing out-migration, unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse and the high cost of living."
"We need to include open minded review of the Pebble Partnership's plan for a mine site near Iliamna, the infrastructure to support it, and possible benefits for the area."
"Over the recent years the BBNC leadership has deeply rooted itself into its opposition of the Pebble project, to the point they have taken a negative aim not only at shareholders who support more of
an open-minded approach, but, of more concern, Bristol Bay Native Corporation needs to rethink the region’s needs and its opposition to Pebble."
"The question I want to pose to our leaders is what do you fear from discussion and conversation? This is how we learn and how we stay informed. To do less than this is, in my opinion, is a severe dereliction of stewardship and leadership."
"This is concerning behavior and leaves me wondering: is BBNC's leadership capable of having a discussion about something as important as the sustainability of our communities, people, and our resources? Perhaps it's time to review our corporation's election processes to ensure equal opportunity is afforded to all possible candidates. I personally think we should have greater regional representation on our board so that more perspectives make their way into the board room when decisions are being made. I also think we should consider the concept of reasonable term limits so that we attract a broader range of people to help our corporation."
Opposition is building within the BBNC to its stand against the Pebble mine
In his reference to out-migration, for the past five years, Alaska has lost more people than it has gained residents. It also marks the 27th consecutive month of job losses.
Many of those fleeing are young people, but older people are increasingly leaving Alaska, especially residents over the age of 50.
In relation to the cost of living and unemployment, in the Bristol Bay region, employment opportunities are scarce, the cost of living is among the highest in the nation. Just 63% of residents living in the Bristol Bay region found work at all, and only 35% were employed throughout the year.
There is every reason to believe that, except for the scare tactics being used against them, the Alaskan residents in the Bristol Bay area would be for the Pebble mine.
Environmentalists insist that Native Alaskan's oppose the Pebble mine
But
Many
Native Alaskans say
YES to PEBBLE
They want permitting to proceed and review the results, and then decide if the Pebble mine is a threat to the area
Lisa Reimers, a board member of Iliamna Natives Limited, said that their position on the mine is neutral. Before they decide anything, they want Northern Dynasty to be allowed to go through the permitting process and then present their side of the story.
The Iliamna leaders wanted to talk to the Native Alaska villagers opposed to the project, and have an "open robust debate about what is at stake." But the villagers that were fighting the mine refused to talk to them.
For example, Robin Samuelsen, a chief with the Curyung Tribal Council, a director with the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, and the chairman of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation’s board of directors, said, "Not having seen the plan, I will still oppose the mine."
The Pebble deposit sits within the Lake and Peninsula borough boundaries. Nathan
Hill, the manager of the Lake and Peninsula Borough, said, "The position of the Borough is neutral. Because of that, we have been targeted by Pebble mine opponents, notably Alaska's wealthiest resident, Bob Gillam, who has funded several lawsuits against us." "The Borough has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting frivolous lawsuits."
Bob Gillam is a self made billionaire who owns a hunting and fishing lodge in the area. He says that he has dedicated millions to stopping the Pebble project. That Pebble will leave behind a wasteland. His critics point out that he never provides any facts to back up his claims.
Newhalen, which is one of the two closest villages to the mine site, is for the Pebble mine. Margie Olympic, who lives in Newhalen, said "I was raised on a commercial fishing boat in Dillingham. Back in the day, we used to make enough money to support the entire family. Nowadays, fishing can only buy a few groceries or just catch up on bills"
Pebble Limited Partnership plans to build the Pebble mine near the village of Iliamna, which is the other Native Alaskan village that is close to the mine site. The villagers say that they are for the mine being built. The Illiamna tribal council sent a letter to the EPA, telling the EPA that they did not want the EPA to oppose the mine. They wrote:
"Our villages are in decline, especially our young people. Commercial fishing has become too expensive. We know that you are working with groups that are opposed to the Pebble project. Groups who live over a hundred miles away from us. Our perspective is imperative in this discussion."
In other words, the people that oppose the Pebble mine, do not live in the area.
The people that live in the area where the mine will be built, want the mine to be built! But the EPA did not include them when it said that the Native Alaskan tribes were opposed to the Pebble mine.
The Native Alaskan's in charge of the Alaska Native Nuna Resources also sent a letter to the EPA:
"Nuna Resources and its native village constituency want to allow impartial scientific studies to build the Pebble Mine near their homes and villages. The natives do not specifically endorse the mine, but they want its proposed developer, the Pebble Limited Partnership, to be given a fair hearing for its claims of environmental and cultural protection on Native traditional lands."
"Nuna's board of directors cannot compete with the large donors financing the campaign to "Stop Pebble Mine" and "Save Bristol Bay." Deep-pocketed individuals and companies like Tiffany Company Foundation."
Tiffany, Zales, and 58 other jewelry retailers have vowed to boycott Pebble gold by signing a "No Pebble Pledge." Anisa Costa, president of the Tiffany & Co. Foundation, offers this: "We strongly believe Bristol Bay to be one of the world's most pristine landscapes, home to a wild and productive salmon fishery which supports the ecosystem and the native communities around it. The proposed Pebble Mine would have a devastating long-term impact. . . . We are proud to sign the Bristol Bay Protection Pledge and urge other U.S. jewelers to do so."
"The natives who stand to gain most from the [Pebble] mine are facing a dire economic situation, toward which the EPA has turned a blind eye. During the salmon fishing season, even in the best years, locals fish only during a three-to-four week season, then go back to villages where there are no jobs. Families are crushed by the cost of living there -- milk costs $9 a gallon and gasoline is $8 a gallon. They see horrible teen suicide rates."
The rate of suicide in Native villages is staggering. In general, Native Alaskan's kill themselves close to twice as often as other Americans. But the rates are much higher in certain regions, such as in Western Alaska, where it's seven times as high as the national average, and also among certain age groups, such as Alaska Native teens and young adults.
"Despairing locals cluster in coastal fishing towns, where they take unsteady, dangerous and low-paying jobs. They also leave their traditions and culture a distant memory, because there is no economy to keep them home."
"The Pebble mine", Reimers said, "would create a local economy, with year-round work for thousands. The proposed mine site is classified by the state as solely mineral land." [and therefore the Pebble mine, by law, should be allowed to be built, and provide jobs and a financially secure living for the Native Alaskans of the area].
The Alaska Peninsula Corporation, which consolidated five tribes controlling 400,000 acres in the Kuichak watershed, which feeds the Bristol Bay area, have not taken a position for, or against the Pebble Project. In order to do so, they insist that due process be followed. "Only then can we consider its benefits and risks." "If due process is not followed, and the mine is blocked, "the lost
opportunity for jobs could cause irreversible disappearance of our culture."
Pebble opponents seem to be fine with that outcome.
On November 19th, Alaska Peninsula Corporation Signed a Land Access Agreement with Pebble Partnership.
Greg Anelon also lives in Newhalen, a dot of a village in Southwestern Alaska, next to Iliamna, its sister village. Both villages are about 15 miles from where the Pebble mine will be located. Greg Anelon is a manager for Iliamna Development Corp., which services some of the exploration work at the Pebble deposit.
Greg Anelon wants to raise his children in the area, but doesn't see a future for his village without the mine and the development that will result from it; namely, inexpensive electricity from the Pebble power plant, which will also help the other villages in the area. The low cost fuel that the mine will be bringing to the area, and the roads that Northern Dynasty will build, will also benefit the area.
Iliamna Development employs people from the region. It's one of the only jobs in the area. Before Pebble arrived, the villages of Iliamna and Newhalen were in severe decline: no jobs, no money, escalating food and fuel costs. Few could afford the fuel and equipment needed to commercially fish the prized sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay.
Anelon agrees fish are more important than gold, but first it has to be shown that the Pebble mine will be a danger to the salmon. Plus the salmon are becoming less financially relevant to the people in the area. That is because, even for the residents that aren't directly involved in salmon fishing, they still can't benefit during the fishing season, by getting jobs processing the fish, because more than 86% of seafood processing jobs in Bristol Bay go to non-Alaskan residents. He notes that few residents in his area can make ends meet solely through commercial fishing.
He thinks that too much attention has been placed on the worst-case scenario: An accident that will poison the waters.
"What other people see is the end, I see as in-between," he said. That in-between means enough infrastructure in the area to keep his village alive. Another village in the area, Pedro Bay, lost its school last fall because of too few children attending. "I'll do anything to make sure the kids live in the village and stay in school," he said.
Another Native Alaska group, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation stated: "The nation's environmental laws are premised on the belief that science, rather than the kind of general information and speculation contained in the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment (BBWA), should govern decisions."
Some of the FAKE FACTS anti-Pebble groups are using
FOREMOST
HOW IMPORTANT ARE THE SALMON
TO NATIVE ALASKAN'S?
How many Native Alaskan's, and Alaskan residents, make a living off of fishing for salmon in Bristol Bay
.
2018 was the highest sockeye salmon run in Bristol Bay since 1980. Half of the Bristol Bay residents are Native Alaskan's, but few were able to take part in the orgy of salmon fishing that was taking place.
In order to prevent over fishing of the salmon, in 1973, Alaska created a limited entry system that capped the number of permits of salmon fishing boats. The permit holders can hold on to the permits, or sell them.
In 1973 most of the salmon were already being caught by large commercial fishing fleets, but that still left a lot of room for Native Alaskan families to make a living catching salmon.
Major foreign fishing conglomerates ended up with 64% of the permits. Native Alaskan families, and Alaskan residents, held the other 36% of the permits, and this was enough permits to service the Alaskan residents and Native Alaskans that wanted to be involved in salmon fishing. However, the number of Native Alaskan families involved in salmon fishing has been steadily dropping, and by 2013 81% of the permits belonged to non-Alaskan holders. That trend is still continuing.
Once a family sells a permit, it is basically gone, because they are so expensive to buy back. It can cost up to $200,000 to buy a permit.
The average age of Alaskan permit holders has been steadily climbing,, and is now over 50. Alaskan youth are no longer committing to a salmon
It used to be that an Alaskan Native, or resident, would get into their trawler and go salmon fishing when the salmon were running. They would spend all day fishing, before heading in to shore. They did not pack the salmon in ice because their trawlers did not have the capability to produce ice, and they did not buy the ice on shore, because the high cost of electricity made ice too expensive to buy, especially with the large amount of ice needed. And as a substitute for ice, most did not have a refrigerated hold in which to put the salmon.
Pebble would help alleviate this problem, because its large electrical generating plant would supply the region with low cost electricity
Very few people can afford to buy one of the new fishing vessels that are equipped with a refrigeration unit, because they cost $400,000.
Upgrading their present trawler with a refrigerated sea water system would cost $30,000 for the system itself. In addition to that, the trawler would require expensive hydraulic modifications, fish hold modifications, and other renovations. Again, too expensive for most people.
A salmon pulled out of water and left in the hold at 59 degrees F for 4 hours, will lose a day of shelf life (equivalent to how long they would be on a grocers shelf). It would lose even more shelf life if the temperature was above that. Because the ships are out in the large bay all day, the salmon could be in the hold for multiples of the four hours, which would mean that they could have lost many days of shelf life before the ship made it back to shore.
Even so, all the salmon would look fresh. Because of that, it used to be that Native Alaskan fishermen/fisherwomen, would get a decent price for their salmon. But now, a hand held device from from Seafood Analytics, can indicate how far the salmon have deteriorated. For years, buyers have been paying Native Alaskan fishermen less and less for their catch, because they were not putting the salmon on ice. Starting this year the buyers are refusing to buy salmon that have not been put on ice after being caught. Very few Native Alaskan's will be able to meet these requirements.
Soon, virtually all of the salmon harvest will be done by non-native Alaskans. Alaskan residents can get secondary jobs, such as working in the salmon processing plants, if they can find such a job.
Most of the salmon harvesting takes place between June and August. During the rest of the year, Native Alaskan's, even the ones that still own fishing boats, need to find work, and there are few jobs available.
Activist's keep saying that Native Alaskan's have been fishing for salmon for thousands of years. That the salmon need to be protected in order that Native Alaskan's can retain their way of life, and financial livelihood that they earn by fishing the salmon.
That has been taken over by out of state commercial fishing fleets.
< Salmon fishing is no longer a way of life >
<<< for Native Alaskan's >>>
Native Alaskan's need to find some other means of support
Pebble, by supplying high paying careers, that will last for generations, is the answer
Critics say that the Pebble mine will only last 20 years, and that cleaning up the toxic mess that it leaves behind will bankrupt the local population. They like to point to all the toxic mining sites that have been left behind by previous mines.
The Pebble deposit has only been partially explored, but it is already expected to last for 100 years. Pebble management has stated that they will hire, and train, local residents to work for the mine. The Pebble mine will supply high paying jobs and living standards for generations of families in the area.
Pebble is a giant ore deposit. World wide, other mines of comparable size, stay in production for well over a hundred years, such as
Chuquicamata, which has been in production since 1910,
As for the local population having to clean up the area after the mine ceases production. The critics know, that there are now laws in place that require mines to set aside the funds to redeem their site after their mine closes.
The toxic mine sites that critics point to, occurred in the distant past, before laws were in place to require mine owners to clean up their sites after the mines shut down.
A pervasive misconception
is the belief that ALL the Native Alaskan villages asked the EPA to ban the Pebble mine
Environmentalist groups, and anti-Pebble groups, like to point out that in 2012, 9 tribal groups, and 1 Native Alaskan Corporation (Similar to an Alaskan village, but incorporated for economic purposes) asked the EPA to ban the Pebble mine using the 404c Clean Water Act.
Why did they bring up the 404c Clean Water Act?
Nearly all construction projects require a 404c permit - 60,000 404c permits are issued annually. If the permit is denied, the construction is not allowed to proceed. BUT before it can be denied, the permitting process first has to be completed and show that the construction project is a danger to the surrounding areas.
The EPA did not follow this legally sanctioned protocol. It preemptively denied Northern Dynasty from proceeding with vetting the Pebble mine, BEFORE the permitting process was even started.
The EPA said that they overrode the permitting process, and instituted an emergency ban on the Pebble mine, because
Native Alaskan's had petitioned the EPA to ban the mine, plus a scientifically backed EPA simulation of the mine showed that it would devastate the Bristol Bay water shed area, if it was allowed to be built.
How did the Native Alaskan villager's know that they should invoke the
EPA employees were providing sensitive information to mine opponents. One of the EPA employee's helped the tribes write their petition to the EPA, and even had them add the 404c Clean Water Act in their petition.
The EPA also worked closely with activist groups, such as Trout Unlimited. The Gordon foundation gave $3,766,000 for the co-ordination of an anti-Pebble mine campaign.
In an internal memo, the EPA said that its ban should be in place before the science behind the Pebble project could be examined.
The government House Oversight and Government Reform Committee found that the EPA planned to halt mining activity in Bristol Bay well before receiving petitions from the tribes. Thus, the EPA's claim that it took action, using Section 404c in response to the tribal petition, is a falsehood.
When the EPA said that 9 tribal groups and 1 Native Alaskan corporation asked them to ban the Pebble mine, what they failed to mention is that 16 tribal groups and 7 Native Alaskan Corporations, plus in addition to that, hundreds of individual Native Alaskans, told the EPA that before they decided if they were for, or against, the mine, they wanted to see how Northern Dynasty planned to set up the mine, and so they wanted it to be evaluated by the permitting process.
That is 16:7 for Pebble vs 9:1 against Pebble. But the EPA only mentioned the groups that were against the mine, and banned the mine. That is not brought up by the anti-Pebble groups.
The EPA made up a hypothetical mine scenario which it said proved that the mine would be environmentally deadly. But the EPA specifically used an outdated model of a mine that would never be permitted today. The EPA used a hypothetical mine that would be a giant open pit mine, that would destroy the surrounding areas. A mine with out safeguards. .
The EPA stated that it's mine was based on plans submitted by Northern Dynasty, but Northern Dynasty would never have submitted such a mine plan, based on outdated, accident prone methods that modern permitting protocols would never allow. Northern Dynasty had an independent engineering firm review the EPA mine plan. Michael Kavanaugh of Geosyntec Consultants said, "It is an alarmist portrait of a hypothetical mining project that would never be permitted in Alaska."
The EPA submitted it's report to a 12 -member Peer Review Panel of scientists in fields such as geology, hydrology, and mining engineering. The review panel handed down a harsh judgement on the EPA report.
William A. Stubblefield, Senior Research Professor, Department of Molecular and Environmental Toxicology, Oregon State University stated, "Because of the hypothetical nature of the approach ... the utility of the assessment, is questionable."
Phyllis K. Weber Scannell, environmental consultant and former biologist for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game stated, "The assumptions [are] inconsistent with mines in Alaska. In particular, the description of effects of stream flows."
Charles Slaughter, a hydrologist of the University of Idaho, summed up his evaluation of the EPA report, saying that it is "pure hogwash." Environmental groups like to say that the EPA submitted their plan to a 12 member Peer Review Panel, and that this proves that their ban was scientifically based. They imply that the Peer Review Panel backed the EPA, and that that proved that the EPA plan was scientifically based. And that is what people will believe, and therefore think that Northern Dynasty is the one using fake facts. When in fact it is the environmentalists that are deliberately misleading the people by not saying that the Review Panel said that the EPA's ban was not scientifically based, and that in fact, it was "pure hogwash."
Instead, the EPA, in conjunction with environmentalist groups, banned the project, citing the danger of their (made up, fake) theoretical mine to the countryside as the reason for banning the project. Alaska’s U.S. Senator, at that time, Lisa Murkowski said, "The EPA used an outdated model of a mine that would never be permitted today."
.
Significantly more Alaskan tribes were for Pebble being allowed to proceed with the permitting process, than were opposed to it. The tribes say that if the permitting process says that the mine will be safe, they will review the results, and if they agree with them, they will vote yes for the mine
.
What most people, including Alaska residents, don't realize, is that the mine that environmentalists use to scare them into opposing the Pebble mine, is the EPA's make believe, outdated, accident prone mine.
.
It should also be noted that Alaska's present environmental standards and permitting requirements are among the most stringent in the world. When followed, they would ensure that the Pebble mine would be safe.
Failure to obtain just one of 67 permits would bring the development of the project to a halt. So there are many layers of safety built into the permitting process.
The present EPA, under its new leadership, decided that the previous EPA was wrong in halting the Pebble project, and is allowing the permitting process to proceed.
Critics still cite that the previous EPA opposed the Pebble project, and say that the EPA said that the Pebble mine would be too dangerous to be built. You now know that the previous EPA was deliberately using fake information in banning the Pebble mine.
What are the arguments that critics are using against the Pebble mine
Opponents say the ore grade is so low that it would not be economically feasible to build a mine.
But porphyry ore deposits are economical even with copper concentrations as low as 0.15%, and Pebble's copper concentration is 0.61% equivalent. .
Copper porphyry deposits are even more economical if they contain additional metals such as gold, molybdenum, and silver. Pebble has world class amounts of those metals, as well as other metals.
Pebble contains a concentration of 0.61% equivalent copper (Eq Cu). Seabridge has the KSM mine whose copper concentration of 0.61% Eq Cu, is similar to Pebble, and Seabridge's mine is very profitable. There are even profitable mines with much lower grades.
Most major mines have cash costs of more than $1 per pound of copper. They are still very profitable mines, because the price of copper is over $2.50/pound. The Pebble mine would have cash costs of $0.53 per pound of copper. A world class low copper cost mine.
Therefore
Pebble would be one of the most profitable large copper mines in the world
People have also been led to believe that Pebble is next to Bristol Bay, but it is 120 miles from Bristol Bay. They have been led to believe that any tailing's spillage will empty directly into the rivers and streams flowing into Bristol Bay. The Pebble mine has been designed so that there will be NO tailing's spillage, but disregarding that, and supposing that there was spillage; unlike what the environmentalists state, the mine is not next to major rivers that empty directly into the Bristol Bay. The Pebble mine will only be near tributaries that account for less than 1% of the Bristol Bay Drainage system.
The Togiak, Nushagak, Naknek, and Kvichak rivers are home to the world's largest returns of sockeye salmon. Every June, some 40 million sockeye salmon surge shoreward toward the Nushagak, the Kvichak, and other rivers that feed Bristol Bay, The EPA, in its opposition to the Pebble mine, said that Pebble would devastate the area because it was near the headwaters of the ecologically sensitive Nuahagak and Kvichak watersheds.
But the Upper Talarik Creek is not the headwaters of the Kvichak River, and the Koktuli River is not the headwaters of the Nushagak River.
Opponents say
The Pebble area is earthquake prone
It is impossible for Pebble to be designed to withstand
the strong earthquakes that occur in Alaska
Opponents state
It is not a matter of IF, but WHEN a catastrophic Pebble mine failure will occur
However, even though there is earthquake activity in Alaska, including the massive 1964, magnitude 9.2 earthquake, which occurred in the Prince William Sound region of Alaska, and which many environmentalists point to and say it would destroy the Pebble mine if it happened again, it did not affect the Pebble site.
The closest earthquake fault to the Pebble site is the Lake Clark Fault. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) concluded that there have been No Earthquakes along the Lake Clark Fault in the last 1.8 million years.
The Castle Mountain Fault in the Cook Inlet Basin is 19 miles from the Pebble site. The maximum possible magnitude earthquake that can be generated along the Castle Mountain Fault, is a 7.8 magnitude earthquake. If a 7.8 magnitude earthquake did occur on the fault, because of its distance from the Pebble site, the Pebble mine would be able to withstand it.
Northern Dynasty's proposed mine would be able to withstand an earthquake stronger than any that have occurred in the area in the last 2,500 years, as determined by the United States Geological Survey.
Some critics have said that the area's earthquake faults have not been thoroughly mapped, and that they could extend under the Pebble mine site, and that if a 7.8 magnitude earthquake occurred directly under the Pebble mine, it would cause a catastrophic failure of the mine.
The reason no earthquake faults have been found under the Pebble site, is because, if any are there, they were too small to have been uncovered by the USGS mapping of the area.
The magnitude of an earthquake is related to the size of the fault and a small fault could not produce an earthquake strong enough to bother the Pebble mine. The Pebble mine has been designed to withstand a 6.5 magnitude earthquake occurring directly under it. A 6.5 magnitude earthquake is an extremely powerful earthquake and it would not be possible for a small fault to produce an earthquake even close to that magnitude. Any earthquake that could happen, would be less than that.
The earthquake risk in the section of Alaska, where the Pebble mine is to be located, is very low. Since the critics are always talking about Bristol Bay, what is its earthquake potential?
The Probability of an earthquake in the Bristol Bay area in the next 50 years is 7.4 magnitude = 0.05%
7.5 " = 0.00%
At the distance of Bristol Bay from the Pebble mine, even a 7.5 magnitude earthquake, if it occurred, would cause no damage.
Critics say that that is not possible to build a mine that could withstand a 7.8 magnitude earthquake, but already there are mines that have been built to withstand earthquakes even stronger than a 7.8 magnitude earthquake.
Chile is a seismically active region, and in 1960 experienced a magnitude 9.5 earthquake, the highest ever recorded by modern instruments. Because of its seismic-risk status, its mines, some of which are the largest in the world, are built to withstand the massive earthquakes of the region, and none have failed.
Neighboring Peru, which is also earthquake prone, has some of the world’s highest embankments for large-scale operating mines. Tailings facilities at the Cerro Verde and Antamina mines are reaching heights of 820 feet and 886 feet, respectively.
These modern tailings facilities in Peru are designed and built to withstand intense, high-magnitude earthquakes. The height of their embankments are much greater than any that are proposed for the Pebble Project.
Critics were besides themselves, screaming that the Pebble dams would be so high that they were bound to fail. Pebbles' original dam was going to be 740 feet tall. The newer, smaller version, will be 600 feet tall. Both are significantly shorter than the Peru mines. And just like the Peru mines, they will be able to withstand intense, high-magnitude earthquakes. But of course, the critics knew this.
Critics point to the Mount Polley mine tailings dam disaster of 4 August 2014, because the designer, Knight-Piesold, is the contractor that will be building the Pebble mine. Therefore, the critics say that Pebble's tailing dam will also fail.
Their argument doesn't hold water, pun intended.
The Mount Polley earthen dam, that was containing the mines' toxic waste, was supposed to be built with a gradual slope so that, as it grew taller, its base would increase in thickness, and it could withstand the increasing pressure of the rising water levels. But during the construction, the builder ran short of rock fill, the material used in the construction of the dam. In response to having less building material, they had the construction company make the dam wall thinner and vertical instead of sloped. It eventually became too weak to hold back the accumulating waste fluids.
The second problem was that the dam was built over a layer of glacial lacustrine soil (glacial silt), 25 feet under the ground. Glacial silt is a sediment of tiny grains of sand deposited by retreating glaciers. It is less stable than other layers, such as rock or compact soil, and, when subjected to increasing pressure, it changes from a solid, to a fluid. This is what happened when it was subjected to the increasing weight and pressure from the toxic waste and water that was accumulating behind the Mount Polley earthen dam.
The dam was built over the glacial soil because Imperial Metals, that owned the Mount Polley mine, only did a haphazard survey of the area, and completely missed the layer of glacial silt.
Imperial Metals over rode Knight-Piesold's objections to the changes in the dam design, and proceeded to build a thin walled dam. That, plus it's inadequate evaluation of the site, caused the mine failure. Knight-Piesold had no say in the matter.
Pebble has tested their mine site to a depth of 5,000 feet, plus Northern Dynasty itself insists that an independent peer review group of scientists critique Knight-Piesold's engineering company's plans, and that the regulators should follow the peer review groups recommendations.
Knight-Piesold can use their expertise to come up with suggestions on how to build the mine. The suggestions will be reviewed, and amended if needed, by a world renowned peer reviewed group of scientists (Peer review is the evaluation of work by scientists of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field.)
The final design of the mine, including the tailing dam, will be determined by the peer review group, who will submit it to the pertinent Alaska authorities, and they will be the ones that either approve the design, or decide that more studies need to be done, and designate what studies need to be done.
The critics know this. So when they say that the dam will fail because Knight-Piesold is designing it, they are making false fake statements.
Northern Dynasty chose Knight-Piesold to construct the Pebble mine because of their extensive knowledge and expertise in building giant mines. The Pebble mine will be built to strict specifications as overseen by the government and scientific peer groups.
Knight-Piesold, with its expertise, will be able to determine the best designs for the Pebble site, taking into consideration the strength of the ground and soil of the region, in conjunction with the earthquake risks.
The scientists in the peer review groups will then examine the designs, and decide if there are any adjustments that need to be enacted. And then the Alaska regulators will do the same. The mine will be built to strict safety standards.
The Alaskan residents, and Native Alaskan's need to be made aware of this.
But what about the accusation that there in no way to design a dam so that it can withstand a large earthquake
This is the same argument that was made about the Trans Alaska Pipeline. What insights can be gained from that debate?
The Sierra Club asserted that the pipeline had basic design flaws which could not be overcome, even by engineering ingenuity, because the pipeline would cross the Denali fault, one of the most active and most powerful earthquake zones in the world.
A report from top ecologists at the Department of the Interior claimed that any one of 23 major earthquakes of the last 70 years would have caused a catastrophic break in the proposed pipeline.
According to the standards for building pipelines at that time, their conjecture was true. But they, and the Sierra Club, were wrong in thinking that ingenuity could not overcome the problems poised by earthquakes.
The oil companies were able design a pipeline capable of withstanding an 8.5 magnitude earthquake. The pipeline specification was for it to be 48 inches in diameter. Normally, that large a pipeline is easily ruptured, but they found a company in Japan that was making 48 inch pipelines with elastic properties so that it could bend under pressure, such as would occur during an earthquake, and return to its original form when the pressure subsided.
To test it under even more extreme circumstances, a section of the proposed pipeline was attached to huge frames, and massive loads were applied so that the pipeline wrinkled, and buckled, and finally folded in on itself, but it still did not rupture, and was even able to hold its pressure.
Over active fault areas, the pipeline was attached to sliders with Teflon shoes that were free to slide on long horizontal steel beams so that the pipeline could move 20 feet sideways if the ground moved sideways during an earthequake.
The pipeline was built with a series of curves so that it could stretch like an accordion if the ground move lengthwise.
The pipeline was flexible enough, and was attached to the beams in such a way, that it could move vertically, up or down, a distance of 5 feet.
Years later, after the pipeline was built, this was put to the test. On November 3, 2002, a 7.9 earthquake occurred on the Denali fault. It was the strongest earthquake ever recorded on the Denali fault.
To put that in perspective, that was 10 times stronger that the 1906 earthquake which destroyed San Francisco.
The ground under the pipeline moved 7 1/2 feet horizontally, and 2 1/2 feet vertically. The violent shaking damaged a few of the pipeline's supports near the fault, but that was it. It just required minor repairs.
The description of the measures taken to protect the pipeline against earthquakes might be hard to visualize, so here is a view of the pipeline at the Denali fault.
What does this have to do with the Pebble mine?
Environmentalists, and other anti-Pebble foes, including the Sierra Club, that was opposed to the Trans Alaska Pipeline, insist that not even engineering ingenuity will make it possible to build a mine that can withstand a strong earthquake.
As shown by the Trans Alaska Pipeline, this argument has no substance. There is no way to know what ingenuity can accomplish.
The Pebble mine is already designed to withstand a 6.5 magnitude earthquake. If regulators want it to be able to withstand a 7.8 magnitude earthquake, or even higher, as shown below, there is every reason to believe that Northern Dynasty will be able to design such a mine.
Innovations in mine design are a continuous ongoing phenomenon, especially as it relates to the containment of the toxic wastes associated with tailing dams.
The most dangerous part of a mine is the toxic liquid wastes which are held in place behind a 'tailings' dam. If a section of the dam crumbles during an earthquake, or for what ever reason, the contaminated water, and its accompanying toxic slurry, would pour out into the surrounding area, including any nearby streams and rivers.
What are tailings? They are what are left over after the minerals have been extracted from the ore:
As with all porphyry ore deposits, Pebble's ore only contains small amounts of metal: Cu grade 0.416%, Mo grade 0.024%, and even smaller amounts of gold: Au grade (g/t) 0.33g/t, Total all metals = equivalent copper grade 0.61%. Because less than 1% of the ore is composed of valuable metal, +99% of the deposit will end up as waste that needs to be stored in a containment site.
To extract the copper, molybdenum, and gold etc. from the ore (rock that contains the metals) the rock is crushed into finely ground particles (150 micron size).
The crushed ore is transported to large froth flotation tanks filled with water mixed with chemical agents that form bubbles (froth) as well as chemicals that help separate metals from the rock substrate. This slurry of crushed ore and water, is conveyed along the length of the tank, where it is continuously agitated and air is injected through the bottom of the tank. The injected air causes bubbles to rise up through the slurry, and then rise to the surface of the water. The agitation of the tank, churns the slurry, and makes sure that all of the slurry comes in contact with the bubbles.
One of the chemicals in the water, is the frother promoter, which strengthens and stabilizes the bubble's surface so that it doesn't burst, but stays as a froth on top of the water. The water also contains Bipoar chemicals, in which one side of the molecule attaches to a specific metal, such as copper, or molybdenum, or gold, and the other side of the molecule attaches to the surface of the bubbles. The bubbles then transport the copper, etc. to the surface of the tank as froth.
A different chemical attaches to the gangue, rock particles that don't contain metal, and coats the gangue with a chemical that repels bubbles, thus ensuring that the particles of rock that done't contain metal ore, remain at the bottom of the tank.
As the slurry makes its way towards the terminal end of the tank, paddles skim off the froth as it forms. The froth is transported through a series of tanks, which contain depressant chemicals. Each tank contains a depressing compound which acts on a specific metal, such as copper, and depresses its ability to adhere to the froth, causing it to sink to the bottom of the tank. In this way the different metals are separated into their own tanks, and then can be further concentrated.
At the end of the process, the water, along with its residual chemicals, is recycled, while the slurry which has had the economical metals extracted, and is at the tail end of the flotation tank, is discharged into a collecting site, and forms, what's called a tailing pond, which is contained behind a dam, called a tailing dam.
This slurry contains pulverized pyrite, FeS, a left over, non-valuable ore. The sulfur in the numerous tiny particles of iron disulfide readily react with the oxygen in the air, and the water in the holding pond, to form a solution of sulfuric acid - battery acid.
The Pebble deposit also contains small amounts of arsenic and heavy metals, such as cadmium, all of which would be dissolved by the sulfuric acid and go into solution, making the tailings pond's contents toxic as well as acidic.
State regulators will determine the maximum size earthquake that could occur in the Pebble area, and instruct NAK's engineers to build a dam strong enough to withstand such an earthquake.
Would engineers have a way of knowing how to build a taiing dam that was capable of withstanding an earthquake?
There are mathematical methods that take into account the cohesiveness of the soil, how it would act during an earthquake, and how stable a dam would be depending on the slope of the dam's walls.
The stability factor (SF) can be calculated depending on the shearing strength parameters of the soil and the dam.
SF = tg / tgβ where, φ is the inside friction angle of the embankment and the material that composes it, corresponding to the shearing strength, and β is the gradient of the slope.
Other equations, such as those that take into account the balance of the vertical forces (∑ i X ) and of the horizontal forces (∑ i E ), would also be used in determining the design of the tailing dam.
There are also other equations that engineers can use, and put together, it would allow engineers to design a tailing dam that would withstand an earthquake equal to the strongest possible earthquake that can occur at the Pebble site. The equations would also enable them to design the mine itself to withstand such an earthquake.
A dam's wall is sloped, so that the lower part will be thicker, and thus better able to withstand the higher pressures present in the deeper part of the slurry. If the slope of the dam is too steep, the dam will be more up and down like a wall, and therefor thinner and easier to break.
As the amount of slurry builds up in the tailing pond, its force against the dam's wall will increase, putting more stress on it, and if the dam is too thin, it would be more prone to have a structural failure.
Because an earthquake would cause violent shaking, and sloshing, of the slurry, thus pounding the dam's wall, plus causing violent movement of the earth, this would put added stress on the dam, possibly causing a breech in the dam's wall, if the wall is too thin.
If the slope is too shallow, the base of the dam will be so massive, that it could compromise the integrity of the foundation of the dam or the ground on which it rests.
Taking into account, the density and viscosity of the slurry, and the forces that an earthquake of maximum determined magnitude will exert on the slurry, and the dam; engineer's will know the required shape that the dam should take so that it will retain its structural integrity.
This is a diagram of a tailings dam:
Engineers can calculate the required shape of a dam, but constructing it within parameters has been difficult, and if it isn't constructed to specification, it would be vulnerable to failure of the dam's wall.
Taking ground based measurements has proven to be imprecise because the ground will usually be too wet on which to drive a surveillance vehicle, and may even be too moist to walk on. There will only be scattered areas suitable for taking measurements, which will result in obtaining only a very loose estimate of the incline, as well as the thickness of the dam's wall. Ground based measurements have huge margins of error, so you don't know if the dam is being built within the engineer's specifications.
Some mining companies have used radar or lasers to measure their tailings dams, but this also presents the problem of time. You have to take measurements from each individual side of the dam because the slope on the inner side of the dam is different than the outer dam wall slope. You are also trying to measure the thickness of the dam's wall. It can take half a day to obtain this single total measurement.
In addition to that, even though radar or laser measurements are more precise, they can only be taken where the ground will support the laser, or radar, and therefore the measurements will also only be able to be taken from scattered vantage points.
Pebble will have a huge dam, and the time involved in measuring its entire length would be too time consuming.
Drone-surveying solves these problems. Drones can be automated, with flight planning apps taking care of the piloting and flying. Once it has finished surveying the dam, the data is uploaded into a processing platform, like Propeller, which will allow you to view and measure the tailing dam in 3D. This will include highlighting areas of the dam where too much material has been deposited, causing a bulge; or not enough material, which would produce an indention in the mine wall. Both problems, a bulge in the dam's wall, or an indention, would cause stresses to form in those areas, and thus produce weak spots in those areas.
The drone survey and processing can take as little as two days to complete. Since drone surveying is faster than ground based surveying, it can be done more often, helping to uncover imperfections in the slope or thickness of the dam's wall in a more timely manner.
An even more efficient and accurate tailings dam wall monitoring procedure is coming into use, which would be perfect for monitoring Pebble's tailings dam.
Photo-satellite surveying, PhotoSat, takes high resolution stereo photographs (3D) accurate to within inches, of hundreds of square kilometers in minutes. This gives a view of the entire mine site, which will be delivered in record time to the mine's engineers, and it will be in a format suitable for immediate use so that there will be no delays on any corrections to the angle or thickness of the dam's walls. Thus preventing the development of any weak spots in the dam.
As these methods come into use, tailing dams will be able to be built to the specifications of engineers who can design a tailing dam to withstand any designated potential earthquake.
A study was undertaken that reviewed the history of mining dam failures and the authors concluded:
"In this paper we will take a rather extreme, but logical, line of thinking, stating that dam failures find, in the vast majority, their root-causes in human choices and not in natural events.
The vast majority of dam failures have occurred for other causes than 'Black Swan' or natural events."
The study concluded that tailing dam's will not fail if built to modern safety designs. Investigation of the dam's that did fail, showed that they failed because the dam's were not built according to safety designations.
Critics charge that even if a safe dam can be built, that won't fail during an earthquake, the tailing pond, which is confined by the tailing dam, will leak acid tinged, heavy metal toxic water into the groundwater below it.
The groundwater, in its travels, would then contaminate the streams, rivers, and lakes in the surrounding area.
Therefore, they said that having a sturdy dam that will not fail, doesn't mean anything because there is no way to prevent the tailing pond's toxic tailing waste from leaking into the groundwater under the dam and contaminate the surrounding area anyway.
There is now a way to prevent leakage from the tailing pond into the groundwater
The Kittila mine located north of Finland, inside the Polar Circle, is located in an environment, and yearly temperature range, similar to the Pebble mine. The Finland Ministry of Environment, mandated that it's tailing pond have a water tight liner.
For the floor of the tailing pond, the company used locally obtained glacial till. It was crushed and compacted into a 40 inch layer which ended up with a water permeability of less than 5x10E-8 m/s.
Over that, the company used sheets of bituminous geomebrane (BGM), which were heat welded together at the edges, as they were laid down. The heat sealed edges were then compressed with a roller as a final seal. The sheets of material are a composite, of which one component consists of the highest quqlity bitumen.
Bitumen is found world wide, but is best known as the tarry substance found in the La Brea Tar Pit in California. It is a sticky, black, and highly viscous liquid.
This is combined with styrene butadiene styrene, a type of rubber with good abrasion resistance and good aging stability, it doesn't break down with age. The combination makes an elastic material that is also self sealing, the bituminous internal mass will flow and seal any punctures and penetrations.
These are combined with a sheet of glass fleece which is a dimensionally stable substance. Extremely high or low temperatures will not make it stretch or shrink. And even when physically stretched and stressed close to its point of rupture, it will return to its original size when the pressure is removed. It also has a high strength-to-weight ratio: high strength with minimal weight. This make the sheets of BGM light, but strong, and easier to maneuver and position so that they are correctly placed, and the glass fleece fabric prevents tearing of the composite sheet.. It is also resistant to most acids.
Bituminous Geomembrane Liners, BGM, stay flexible and do not stiffen, even at temperatures as low as -40°F. Because of their low thermal expansion coefficient, they do not form wrinkles, and therefore lay flat, and in complete contact with the crushed glacial till floor of the tailing pond. BGM liners are listed as having cold flexibility and elasticity. Since they stay flexible, even at -40°F, they will mold themselves to any imperfections of the substrate over which they are being laid, even in deep sub zero temperatures, and will form a tight seal with the substrate. They also have a high friction coefficient and can be laid over even steeply angled dam walls.
The lowest temperature recorded at Pebble's site since 1947 is -31°F. BGM can be applied at temperatures as low as -40°F. Because temperatures at the Pebble site stay well above this, even at the coldest times of the year, it would allow construction to be carried out year round at the Pebble site.
Based on the resulting composite's physical durability and resistance to punctures and tearing, and to most chemicals, the U.S. Navy Nuclear Safety Agency certifies BGM for a 1,000 year life span.
BMG specifications call for it to be installed on a 2" compacted substrate, but in this case it was 40". The Pebble area has an abundance of glacial till available, so it could also lay down a thick compacted substrate, which in itself would be considered a water proof seal. The combination of BMG over compacted substrate is called a dual seal.
In addition to BGM being used on the floor of the tailing holding pond site, it would also be used on the inner wall of the tailing dam. This will ensure that there will be no leakage through the dam's wall.
In order to get to the ore in the deposit, an over burden of rock has to be removed. It is broken up, taken off site, and forms waste rock piles. These also contain iron pyrite, which is prevalent in the area. Because the pyrite is now open to air and rain water, it also generates sulfuric acid contaminated water, and Pebble critics say that it will seep down into the water table.
This is not a valid argument, because Northern Dynasty has stated that the waste rock will be stored in a lined, water proof, containment site. This would also be a dual seal. Although the substrate would only have to be 2 inches thick, it could be made thicker.
Using a two layer design composed of compacted glacial till, covered with BMG, will ensure that there is no leakage into the groundwater