DT Jr. on Meateater

[Bambistew]

4) the EIS has a LOT of assumptions and the assumptions are used in the modeling, so nothing is certain, just a best educated guess. I agree permits should not be issued on popularity contests, but the analysis has so many assumptions it kind of ends up that way by default (political/popularity).

So we only believe models when they suit our narrative? Insert climate change models...

No, I didn't read the whole thing, but the executive summary is over 100 pages and no one is paying me to read it so I just "skimmed" it. All alternatives reviewed by USCOE said there will be an impact on various drainages. to quote:
Potential impacts to fish values at the mine site include: direct loss of aquatic habitat in the NFK and SFK drainages; fish displacement, injury and mortality; changes in surface water and groundwater flows that could impact fish spawning, rearing, and off-channel habitat; increased sedimentation and turbidity instreams; impacts to fish migration; changes in surface water temperatures; and changes to surface water chemistry. In summary, development of the mine sitewould permanently remove approximately 99 miles of streambed habitat in the NFK and SFK drainages.
None of the impacts can be quantified in time or magnitude. Again, best educated guess says this is going to have a negative environmental impact. I don't need to cite any studies to refute anything because the summary lays it out. It's all there.

No one is paying me either, but if I'm going to have an opinion on it I'm going to form my own, not take someone else's word for it. Like I said no one reads anything, its too much work...

I'm not denying that there will be loss of habitat, but its a tiny piece of habitat of the entire region. Alaska isn't MT the entire state shouldn't be a friggn national park, at statehood we settled that and gave up 40% of the state as national parks/preserves. And you are right, there is no way quantify the loss, but we can make assumptions/estimates as to what it will be. The end result could result in more habitat or rehabilitation elsewhere in the drainage per requirements of the permit. The water management plan will likely result in stabilized flows in the streams throughout the year that will very highly increase spawning and rearing habitat in the NFK drainage. Imagine if the habitat loss was offset by a 2-3 fold increase in usable habitat? Here is a comparison. Pebble will impact about 2400ac of wetlands (what the previous administration's EPA allowed, BTW). The city of Anchorage has destroyed over 8000ac, and I have no clue how many hundreds of miles of spawning/rearing habitat. The turbidity of every stream in the municipality is degraded, etc etc. I don't like making comparisons, but it is what it is. There has been little to no reciprocal replacement of those lost wetlands and extinct fisheries. This is in no way a comparision to what Pebble would do on a drainage wide basin. Anchorage has destroyed entire basins. The COE also notes that the loss of salmon would be unmeasurable because of the size and variability of runs. There is 100,000's of miles of rearing streams in the drainage. Again going back to the dooms-day all ocean killing mine, its impossible to even quantify the loss of fish because it so small. How will it destroy the Bristol Bay Fishery?

Another quote:
The EPA assumed that if the infrastructure for one mine is built, it would likely facilitate the development of other mines, and for the purposes of their study assumed that six additional mines would be developed
There is no guarantee this does or doesn't happen, but it was in the EPA's research because it was reasonable. So it's not just the Pebble project, it the potential for more development once the infrastructure is in place.

Well, they'd have to find a resource for them to develop a mine, at this point there hasn't been much found. The infrastructure "could" support up to 6 mines, not will. Kind of like saying a road has capacity for 100 cars per hour, but only sees 10.

We are talking about whether the benefit outweighs the costs (here is where we disagree, I'm sure of that). We don’t need any more gold. The US isn’t on the gold standard anymore and we just printed a few trillions of dollars in the blink of an eye and the World didn't care. Copper is an industrial metal and the price has been stable. It has been between $2 and $3 for years and China's use really determines pricing in the metal. This mine doesn't have a need from a US strategic point of view. Consequently, my view is let someone else mine it; Chile, Peru, Mexico, etc. You say "They only understand that dams fail and believe that everything related to mining is “toxic.” " I agree that dams rarely fail in catastrophic fashion, but they leak- a lot. The area is also active for earthquakes and volcanic activity (which is why the copper is there), which increase the chance of problems. And mining is toxic. To extract copper from the ore you have to pass sulfuric acid over it so the copper dissolves. Sounds "toxic" by my definition. I presume this mine is going to do the same thing, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Your idea of benefit/need is pretty different than the worlds, but I see you point. The price of gold is up 20% since the printing of that money... mostly because the dollar devalued. As the price goes up, other projects become viable as well at lower grades, however those at higher grades become even more valuable. I do agree, we don't need more gold, but the world sees it differently. As to the point of copper prices not increasing, the demand has increased about 5% a year. The price has remained stable because we are offsetting demand by mining more of it. There hasn't been a large copper mine permitted in a long time, those mines don't produce for ever and have a finite production, and the % copper in reserve declining and the price will very likely surge in the coming future, or that's the idea. Similar to "peak oil" they are predicting "peak copper." I do think that technology will reduce the amount of copper used/needed in the future, but as the push for electric cars and other "renewable" energy sources continues to surge, the amount of copper needed is going to continue to increase, and likely substantially. We can not recycle our way out of it yet. Something like 90% of all copper mined is currently in the production cycle, and demand.

Let other countries mine, sounds good until we piss off the rest of the world and stop exporting. As far as strategically not needed, yeah, probably not at this point, but at the rate that mines are depleting reservs, and the lack of permitting new mines, at some point we could be in the position.

The dam is designed to leak, and be collected. Leakage is easy to contain/collect. As far as your earthquake catastrophe, thats a red herring. There are thousands of dams built in and around fault lines that have withstood massive quakes. You're showing your lack of dam building expertise. Rockfill dams are the safest of all dams when it comes to earthquakes. Lastly, there is no active fault near the mine, the dam is designed as if there is. Its all in the EIS. You mention volcanoes, what happens when one goes off and kills off all the fish area wide? Its happened for eons, and the fish persist. The stuff coming out is just as "toxic" or more so than anything that would come from the mine. Maybe this is why the fishery is so prolific?

My conclusion is purely from my personal point of view. I don't live in Alaska and I don't work on the project, so I don't care how much money they might make on the mining lease or payroll taxes. Selfish? yes. I would rather we leave it and enjoy the natural resources and generate revenue that way.

I don't fault you for your opinion. I wish Big Sky, and Bozeman would burn to the ground, and we could go back 40 years. MT is an awful place to live. They've destroyed one of the best places in the world with development, and eco-tourism along with untold ac of wetlands, and streams and fish and polluted rivers. Its easy to point out one project, but impossible to quantify the destruction of an entire ecosystem, where everyone is responsible.

Regarding bonding, every mine isn't a problem but it has to be pricing like it will become a problem. A google search of superfund sites will list a lot of mines. People can complain about the cost of EPA regulations but I like clean air and water and as a citizen, don't want to pay every time some engineering assumption goes wrong. Like I said earlier, the high cost of the the regulation has pushed our pollution to other countries and we get cheaper prices too. I would rather we come up with cleaner ways to do this, but Americans love a good deal and they don't like recycling. How this mine could possibly be cheaper than collecting copper from all the broken down equipment sitting on ranches in Montana is beyond my comprehension.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the cost to do reclamation. Bonding is the safeguard against superfund sites. Some states are behind (cough Montana), but others are at the forefront. Bonds are priced to cover the worst case scenario that could likely happen, but not some far fetched pie in the sky scenario, like a nuke hitting a dam, or some massive failure.

A cleaner way to mine? We're getting there, and maybe with technology we can, or we can reduce our footprint/use of minerals. But until the rest of the world climbs out of their third world economy, its not happening.

 

[SAJ-99]

So we only believe models when they suit our narrative? Insert climate change models...

The comment above was not my point. A model is just a model regardless. Generally wrong with the only unknown being which way.
I agree with much of what you said, but you also used quite a few red herrings - comparing AK to MT, comparing volcanic eruptions to a man made pool of acidic sulfides in a highly productive fishery, etc, etc. I don't think we are that far apart other than on the conclusion. You comment on gold show your knowledge of economics is equal to mine on dam building. We don't need more of it. Come talk to me when there is a copper shortage and I will reconsider.

 

[longbow51]

I know very little about the mine, but Bambistew seems to know more actual engineering as opposed to repeating tropes. As far as his comments on Montana, he is perfectly correct. We have sold our souls for ecotourism, sold our rivers to outfitters and leased much of our land, all in pursuit of dollars while limiting resources for actual Montanans who want to hunt and fish. We have despoiled our valleys with growth, and smog on a winter day in Missoula might rival LA's best. Maybe we should be a bit more humble about knowing about what is best for Alaska. I think I read somewhere about removing the board in your own eye before the dust speck in your buddy's eye.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

https://www.pebbleprojecteis.com/files/3053b63e-0532-4c01-bedf-63b1537ba22d

 

[BWALKER77]

I know very little about the mine, but Bambistew seems to know more actual engineering as opposed to repeating tropes. As far as his comments on Montana, he is perfectly correct. We have sold our souls for ecotourism, sold our rivers to outfitters and leased much of our land, all in pursuit of dollars while limiting resources for actual Montanans who want to hunt and fish. We have despoiled our valleys with growth, and smog on a winter day in Missoula might rival LA's best. Maybe we should be a bit more humble about knowing about what is best for Alaska. I think I read somewhere about removing the board in your own eye before the dust speck in your buddy's eye.

Bambistew's post are spot on. And I think I am qualified to judge based in the fact I was a former metallic mining/mineral processing supervisor and have a BS in Environmental Science.

 

[BWALKER77]

Bambi, you're the expert in this mining/engineering topic. I pay attention to your comments on the facts related to risks and likelihood of an on the ground problem. I've got a couple questions you might help with, given this week I am doing a podcast with experts in Free Market Environmentalism and this mine is likely one of our topics.

Maybe your comments apply to the engineering side and not the financial/risk analysis side.

My point with mining/O&G has always been that we should require bonding for the full costs/liability that could exist. No more Pegasus situation where a foreign company gets the bonding lowered to a pittance, effs up the water supply, then files bankruptcy, sticking locals with impaired property values and the state with millions in unbonded cleanup/mitigation. If an operator files BK, there should be a surety/bonding company standing in the shoes of the BK organization that pays for all costs/liability.

Whenever this "bond for full cost/liability" idea is floated as ways to get the politicians out of arbitrary decisions, it is stated that such level of bonding would make resource extraction unfeasible. The bonding costs would be too high. Thus, extraction would move overseas, which currently happens in many instances, where these bonding requirements are far less.

The counter to the "too expensive to bond" argument is that if the risk is low, as operators usually claim in their permit applications, there is not much exposure to the bonding company and thus full bonding would not be a prohibitive cost. If the risk is high, then the risk experts have determined they need a huge annual premium to stand in the shoes of the mining company in the event of a problem.

Low risk, low bonding cost. High risk, high bonding cost. If it can still be profitable while carrying the bonding costs of all costs/liabilities, then it should be permitted. A paraphrase of the basic premise of the Free Marketeers.

Risk costs to be covered/bonded are a function of many things; the engineering risk in the given geographic/geologic area, financial risk, risk related to historical problems of the mining company, level of capitalization of the mining company to absorb their own liabilities, etc.

Q: Is this "let the risk experts decide" idea often floated by Free Market Environmentalists merely a scholastic exercise for Econ classes or does it have practical application to mining, in this case the Pebble Mine?

Mining companies form many of their entities as Parent-Subsidiary Corporations, Limited Partnerships, and Limited Liability Companies to manage risk to the parent enterprise that owns the interest in the LLC/LP.

Q: Do mining companies capitalize their LLCs and JVs at such low levels, relative to total risk associated with operations, that the bonding risk to a surety company would be super high even if the engineering can results in very low likelihood of a problem?

I just went and did a search of the ownership structure of Pebble Mine Limited Partnership on the AK SOS website. It is a Limited Partnership. A Limited Partnership limits liability to any Limited Partner. In this case, Northern Dynasty Partnership, based in Vancouver, owns the Limited Partnership interests, so no future liability can hit them via that LP ownership.

The General Partner is Pebble Mine Corp. Given it is a corporation, it also has limited liability. By the docs from the Secretary of State, you can see the purpose of Pebble Mine Corp. is to be the General Partner of Pebble Mine Limited Partnership. It is 100% owned by Northern Dynasty. So, no liability to them via their General Partnership interest, as it is held in a shell corporation.

There is nothing strange about how this is set up. It is very common in high risk enterprises to use entities that limit liability to the owners, as is accomplished with corporations, LPs, and LLCs.

If Pebble Mine were approved and for some reason Pebble Mine had a huge liability claim not fully covered by the bonded levels, the US and AK taxpayer get the bill. The two legal entities Northern Dynasty has used, a corporation and a LP, limit any liability to the owners of those entities. Thus, none of the liability in the event of an uncovered claim will flow to Northern Dynasty. They would get to walk with only their investment in the mine as recourse to the state/fed. The remainder of the liability (beyond mine liquidation value) would fall to taxpayers (not Canadian taxpayers where Northern Dynasty is based).

I have no idea what the bonding requirements will be or should be to make all parties whole in the event of a huge claim.

I point this out to show how thinly capitalized these operating entities are in many instances, all for the purposes of managing financial risk in the event of a claim not covered by bonding. Even with highly capitalized parent companies, the operating entities are usually thin and set up to limit liability to the parent companies. As a result of these low capitalization levels and no/limited liability to the parent entities, bonding becomes far more expensive, even if the engineering solutions mitigate on the ground risk to a high degree.

No doubt the US is a disproportionate consumer of metals/O&G. I wonder if part of that is due to the fact that we do not require full absorption of the costs/risks by the producers, a cost that if fully absorbed would have to be passed on to consumers, thereby increasing costs to reflect what the true costs are. Higher cost, if economists are correct, results in lower utilization by consumers. We know that extraction of these resources is moved overseas to countries with far lower regulation/bonding. Congress does not have the stones to restrict importation of resources from countries willing to lower regulations and bonding requirements.

We are forced to decide if we want to lower regulation or cap bonding requirements to make our own resource extraction economically more competitive and profitable. To what degree costs/liabilities get absorbed or avoided is the often the crux of these discussions.

View attachment 151413

Randy, bare in mind that Northern Dynasty or the Pebble Partnership as it exists currently will never mine anything. Northern Dynasty needs one of the majors to enter into the partnership before mining actually can take place. Rio Tinto was previously part of the partnership but withdrew in 2014.

 

[Irrelevant]

While I do not have the knowledge to refute anything said, really on either side, I do find the comment about the MT being destroyed by development interesting considering AK is steaming that same direction yelling "Hold my beer!" the only difference will be timelines, the end result will be the same, and someone down the road with lament how great AK used to be before all the damn development and soul selling.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

While I do not have the knowledge to refute anything said, really on either side, I do find the comment about the MT being destroyed by development interesting considering AK is steaming that same direction yelling "Hold my beer!" the only difference will be timelines, the end result will be the same, and someone down the road with lament how great AK used to be before all the damn development and soul selling.

I do wonder if AK is following the pattern of CA, CO, and now Montana...

 

[Bambistew]

I do wonder if AK is following the pattern of CA, CO, and now Montana...

Unlikely considering every development project is hit with a stop at all cost, also unlikely because we are losing population vs gaining, along with very little private land to turn into McMansion estates and giant private hunting preserves. AK won't be like any other western state, anytime soon, or ever, certainly not in my kids lifetime. If anything we'll become more like Detroit, we're headed there fast.

@wllm1313, Is the letter you posted supposed to be Trumps big project killer?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Unlikely considering every development project is hit with a stop at all cost, also unlikely because we are losing population vs gaining, along with very little private land to turn into McMansion estates and giant private hunting preserves. AK won't be like any other western state, anytime soon, or ever, certainly not in my kids lifetime. If anything we'll become more like Detroit, we're headed there fast.

@wllm1313, Is the letter you posted supposed to be Trumps big project killer?

I was more referring to natural resource issues. I think CA may take the cake for the worst... Bakersfield is by far the most brutal landscape I’ve ever seen, “loving it to death” also arguably started in CA.

Totally agree, you aren’t going to see urban sprawl in AK.

Ketchikan is remarkably like a CO ski town, and much like CO seems like extractive industries are king.

Montana... similar

That’s all I was thinking about.

I thought you made a lot of good points, the EIS supports your case.

I found the earthquake mitigation interesting, definitely want to pick our geologists brains. I feel like there are some gaps in my understanding of some things.

Nothing meant by the post, just the most recent development figured it was relevant Don Jr, actually seemed to have some sway with his dad on the topic.

I’m fully comfortable with not liking the mine, but also acknowledging that you seem to be 100% correct in your assessment.

I’m not going to craft some BS argument, and I agree they are likely just moving the goal post to try and get the outcome they want.

My preference is to preserve wilderness wherever we have it left.

 

[Irrelevant]

Unlikely considering every development project is hit with a stop at all cost, also unlikely because we are losing population vs gaining, along with very little private land to turn into McMansion estates and giant private hunting preserves. AK won't be like any other western state, anytime soon, or ever, certainly not in my kids lifetime. If anything we'll become more like Detroit, we're headed there fast.

@wllm1313, Is the letter you posted supposed to be Trumps big project killer?

Detroit not Denver?...Maybe parts of it. No one I know that spent any time in AK in the (fill in the blank, 40s-80s) and has been back recently thinks it's the same. They all lament the AK of the past. but you are right that without a wholesale change to the management of State/Federal/Tribal lands it simply can't actually turn into MT.

But in my very brief stays I've sat in plenty of Anchorage traffic, something I'm sure people 30 yrs ago never thought would happen.

 

[FlatlanderAZ]

Will a Republican senator that voted no to this bill lose hunter votes this fall?

Will trump gain votes from hunters for him supporting and passing this bill?

Yes (technically not a senator, but I will not be voting for my congressman based on this).

Maybe. Between the resilience of the economy and the overall progress made on public lands I may be softening my never Trump stance.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Enjoying the back & forth here, but since I'm not up to Bambi's level of knowledge, just gonna drop this into the mix, and point to the last sentence of post #169

It ain't dead, just dead until people aren't looking (or voting)

No block: Pebble Mine says it's still on track with federal permits

The Corps of Engineers has issued a letter outlining what the Pebble Mine has to do to mitigate stream damage. It does not block the mine, as mine opponents wanted.

www.alaskapublic.org

 

[SAJ-99]

That is interesting.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Wait, you people really want to give DT Jr. an opportunity to do what?!? He’s right now and ever previous to this defending the indefensible. If given an opportunity in elected public office, he will be a menace. Just because some jackwagon claims to be a sportsman does not a sportsman make. Remember Sarah Palin is a sportswoman? I dare any of you to travel to AK and make that claim in public. No sir, keep DT Jr. at a distance and do not trust him.

 

[Bambistew]

While the letter isn't an outright project killer, it certainly puts some onerous requirements on them that may prove very difficult to offset/comply with. Since they've had a decade to plan, I presume they've considered this outcome, hence the reason they have a plan ready to submit already. There are some ways the state can help with the offset, but that's a lot of acres to offset in an area that has little to no development/impaired wetlands. The ROD also requires them to use the road corridor vs their prefered ferry across the lake. The road has to go through private property, of which some of the owners are 100% against the project. The hill is certainly getting steep... One thing is for sure, even if the mine isn't built it has provided a lot of work for people on both sides.

 

[Ben Lamb]

While the letter isn't an outright project killer, it certainly puts some onerous requirements on them that may prove very difficult to offset/comply with. Since they've had a decade to plan, I presume they've considered this outcome, hence the reason they have a plan ready to submit already. There are some ways the state can help with the offset, but that's a lot of acres to offset in an area that has little to no development/impaired wetlands. The ROD also requires them to use the road corridor vs their prefered ferry across the lake. The road has to go through private property, of which some of the owners are 100% against the project. The hill is certainly getting steep... One thing is for sure, even if the mine isn't built it has provided a lot of work for people on both sides.

The consultant's credo: "There's no money to be made in solving a problem."

 

[Deleted member 18333]

The consultant's credo: "There's no money to be made in solving a problem."

This is the most accurate thing you have written in some time.

 

[Wildabeest]

Wait, you people really want to give DT Jr. an opportunity to do what?!? He’s right now and ever previous to this defending the indefensible. If given an opportunity in elected public office, he will be a menace. Just because some jackwagon claims to be a sportsman does not a sportsman make. Remember Sarah Palin is a sportswoman? I dare any of you to travel to AK and make that claim in public. No sir, keep DT Jr. at a distance and do not trust him.

In general, I’m not a DT Jr. fan. However, he was influential on two MAJOR things that are very important to lots of people on here - getting the GAOA passed AND SIGNED, and getting Pebble Mine killed. Give credit where it’s due, regardless of whether you like someone or not. I’ll extend the same to POTUS, who I’m even less a fan of. Thanks for doing the right thing. (But I’m still not voting for you)

 

[Deleted member 28227]

One thing is for sure, even if the mine isn't built it has provided a lot of work for people on both sides.

The pebble project website, mapping, and modeling is pretty impressive. Its clear and amazing amount of work went into this process.