Addicting
Well-known member
It needed to be said.
EPA vetoes the Pebble Mine invoking Section 404c of the Clean Water Act.
- Thread starter 44hunter45
- Start date
Yup, but this whole thread is spinning.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Don’t know if you noticed, but we don’t need the jobs here. In fact, have too many we can’t fill already.
Agree, I’m for responsible mining and O&G drilling. I’m just not sure it’s ever been done from start to finish. I have seen a lot of promises to do it, but mostly that involves corporation trying to weasel through holes in regulations. Holes big enough to drive a Cat mining truck through. That is why we get this “two-sides” BS, and everyone suffers. For those that want to keep Bristol Bay ecosystem the place it is, Pebble all risk no reward.
Bambistew
Well-known member
What's even more funny is you search "Trump" and @Gr8bawana you get 8 pages, and 3 for @Straight Arrow making degenerate remarks about him and his followers.
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.
From this point forward I will only speak of elected officials by their given names. No matter how big of a failure they are. All hail dually elected President Joe Biden and his historical elected VP. Our lives are truly better with them in office.
Bambistew
Well-known member
We all see what we want to see... And we all use mining products every second of every day.
There isn't a single mine that can be created without some sort of environmental impact. Yet the world somehow has managed to survive with mines for 1000s of years. The best we can do is limit it, or stop using minerals. BTW the green revolution is going to require more copper than has ever been mined in the history of man. But we'll get it from somewhere else until we can't.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I was much more, "anti-mining" 10 years ago than I am now. A fair part of that change, was the time folks like @Bambistew have taken on the internet to provide perspectives alternate to the typical American viewpoint. Which, make no mistake, is privileged as hell. To be clear, privilege does not necessarily make a false argument.
That's not to say there isn't better ways forward - both bureaucratic and technologically - but I will leave that to people smarter than me. There is though, a definite detachment from reality out there when it comes to minerals. Everyone's plans - regardless of side of the isle - requires an enormous amount of them. Realistic acquisition of minerals to bring those plans to fruition is always lacking. Somewhere else. Someone else's problem. Someone else's earth.
I believe in conservation and the beauty of the earth, and I have seen it "ruined". I am aware of the stains of mining locally here in Montana - here in my backyard. And yet, I believe there is beauty in mining too. I went to a talk once where an old miner said, "Ever since man looked down and picked up a stone for a tool, we've been miners." Our eyes are often cast to the big holes in the ground as they are easiest to see, too frequently looking over the subdivisions using far more land and water. Child slaves dug the minerals making up a portion of your iPhone. If it wasn't grown it was mined. All weird facts.
One thing I think is often an invalid line of reasoning is geographic opposition. "Not at the Headwaters of the Smith!" "Not at Pebble Bay!" "Not in the Paradise Valley!" As if these chunks of earth should mean more to me than the seldom visited divides I call home and seek solitude in.
They don't.
None of what I just wrote speaks to the validity of the Pebble Mine, it’s true. There just seems to be a loaded prose occurring in these conversations that makes it hard to tell what’s Genuine, nearly always
That's not to say there isn't better ways forward - both bureaucratic and technologically - but I will leave that to people smarter than me. There is though, a definite detachment from reality out there when it comes to minerals. Everyone's plans - regardless of side of the isle - requires an enormous amount of them. Realistic acquisition of minerals to bring those plans to fruition is always lacking. Somewhere else. Someone else's problem. Someone else's earth.
I believe in conservation and the beauty of the earth, and I have seen it "ruined". I am aware of the stains of mining locally here in Montana - here in my backyard. And yet, I believe there is beauty in mining too. I went to a talk once where an old miner said, "Ever since man looked down and picked up a stone for a tool, we've been miners." Our eyes are often cast to the big holes in the ground as they are easiest to see, too frequently looking over the subdivisions using far more land and water. Child slaves dug the minerals making up a portion of your iPhone. If it wasn't grown it was mined. All weird facts.
One thing I think is often an invalid line of reasoning is geographic opposition. "Not at the Headwaters of the Smith!" "Not at Pebble Bay!" "Not in the Paradise Valley!" As if these chunks of earth should mean more to me than the seldom visited divides I call home and seek solitude in.
They don't.
None of what I just wrote speaks to the validity of the Pebble Mine, it’s true. There just seems to be a loaded prose occurring in these conversations that makes it hard to tell what’s Genuine, nearly always
Last edited:
They might not be more important but the worlds largest salmon run might be deemed more important. And irreplaceable.
I’m no green freak. I Spent some time underground with a Jack leg in my hands. Mining fed my family. I get both sides of it.
I’m no green freak. I Spent some time underground with a Jack leg in my hands. Mining fed my family. I get both sides of it.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Earth survived and we are still cleaning up the past mess. I get your point. Here is the reality. Copper is a commodity. It can be purchased from Chile or China or the US. If we impose “environment-related” costs related to making sure it is done right, any manufacturer can buy it cheaper from somewhere else that doesn’t impose those cost. Given that, there is almost no economical way to mine in US. The only option is to get rid of environmental regulations. People aren’t willing to do that yet. Privileged? Yep.
Addicting
Well-known member
Our lives are better that we have had and respected that office independent of who personally was in it.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,294
Perhaps for our lives to truly be better we should pay more attention to ensuring the men we send to the office are worthy of it and our respect?
We send fools and desire the wisdom of our symbolic respect to pay us success.
Addicting
Well-known member
Don’t disagree.
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
Agreed. And it's about darn time that they aren't all men, too.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,294
BackofBeyond
Well-known member
Same. I was born an raised in the U.S.’s biggest Superfund site. Maybe that’s colored my perspective of the matter, but I’d rather buy copper from Chile than roll the dice on that salmon run.
Huntin' Fool
Well-known member
I've been to Bristol Bay and worked on a commercial fishing boat in my younger days.
The largest and greatest wild salmon runs in the world.
The worst place in the world for a mine.
The largest and greatest wild salmon runs in the world.
The worst place in the world for a mine.
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
Agreed
I'll happily struggle my way through zey/zem pronouns for a good president!It’s 2023… are we even sure what a man or a woman is?
the nikster
Well-known member
^^^Just when I thought this thread might get back on the rails^^^It’s 2023… are we even sure what a man or a woman is?
I don’t know enough about pebble to have a strong position one way or another. If it is environmentally incompatible, NEPA should sort that out if the politicians could stay out of it.
What I don’t like is the opposition to literally every single mine, mining project and proposal by the same groups that scream the loudest for electrification, climate change solutions and fair pay. I wonder if they realize it makes them look not serious about making a real impact.
What I don’t like is the opposition to literally every single mine, mining project and proposal by the same groups that scream the loudest for electrification, climate change solutions and fair pay. I wonder if they realize it makes them look not serious about making a real impact.
Bambistew
Well-known member
The mine design for Pebble is state of the art and state of practice. Limited tailings water, larger grind size, pyrite circuit, etc, etc. Factor of safety on dams in the 3s. Most dams are 1.5. You couldn't shoot a hole in it if you wanted to. They based their review on historical tailings dam failures. Which are like 1:4000. Almost every one of those failures were due to poor design, or designs used 100 years ago. Flawed analysis to get their desired outcome. That's like basing the death rate from a Model T to a new Volvo.
Most people don't know this. But the ACOE actually approved the mine through the NEPA process. Their review of failure modes is very interesting. Dam failure, tailings spills, etc. They estimated that there would be no way to determine the impact to the fish population. The impact would be localized for maybe 20-30 miles of steam in the event of a Model T failure. The mine isn't on a super spawning stream for sockeye. And would not effect the vast majority of BB if something happened, an immeasurable effect to the salmon population, to use their own words The impacts would be to king salmo, which under the Model T failure could be bad, depending on what percentage of kings are in the watershed, but that was unknown. The ACOE required compensatory mitigation for the loss of wetlands, in a literal sea of wetlands within the watershed. Alaska is 40%+ wetlands, and we have special exemption for impacts that the L48 doesn't have. There is basically no mitigation available to offset the loss in that area. So they approved their permit, knowing all along they couldn't meet their mitigation requirement. Never mind that almost all projects have the option to pay for mitigation vs provide it. Usually at a 3:1 rate. The project met all the permiting goals and requirements. As I said not only move the goal, put it in a different field. Why have regulations when you just bypass them. At a minimum I hope the lawyers get the $400M+/- from the federal government that was spent permitting a mine that was approved yet denied.
To meet the goals set out in the Paris accord and our own dually elected president Joe Biden's, Critical Minerals initiative.. estimates the world needs to permit and construct 1/3 to 1/2 as many new copper mines a year for the next 30 as in current production... It's taken us 100 to get where we are today. Selecting the best project to develop that are economic. We arent going to make it happen, especially killong them off left and right... Pebble, Twin Metals and a few yet to come. There isn't that many economical viable mines. Reserve/resources doesn't equal money to finance and build it. Killing them one by one doesn't help. We will need twice the copper we are mining now to meet future demands, not just the green revolution. Hopefully technology will help bridge the gap.
Most mines are running at capacity, and depleting orebody. As the price goes up for copper they can reduce their cutoff grade. And squeeze a bit more resource from current projects but it will be at a lower production. There is zero chance we can meet demand from current mines. We don't have the luxury of time to continue to shut down projects of we plan to decarbonize the world. It's not just in the US that obstruction is happening. Same goes for lithium and graphite. There is going to be global shortage all around to meet the goals of Paris Accord. There aren't enough miners, geologists, engineers or more importantly, investors willing to dump money into projects with questionable return timelines. Investing in mining has worse connotation than investing in O/G in US. Interesting times ahead, Pebble or not.
Most people don't know this. But the ACOE actually approved the mine through the NEPA process. Their review of failure modes is very interesting. Dam failure, tailings spills, etc. They estimated that there would be no way to determine the impact to the fish population. The impact would be localized for maybe 20-30 miles of steam in the event of a Model T failure. The mine isn't on a super spawning stream for sockeye. And would not effect the vast majority of BB if something happened, an immeasurable effect to the salmon population, to use their own words The impacts would be to king salmo, which under the Model T failure could be bad, depending on what percentage of kings are in the watershed, but that was unknown. The ACOE required compensatory mitigation for the loss of wetlands, in a literal sea of wetlands within the watershed. Alaska is 40%+ wetlands, and we have special exemption for impacts that the L48 doesn't have. There is basically no mitigation available to offset the loss in that area. So they approved their permit, knowing all along they couldn't meet their mitigation requirement. Never mind that almost all projects have the option to pay for mitigation vs provide it. Usually at a 3:1 rate. The project met all the permiting goals and requirements. As I said not only move the goal, put it in a different field. Why have regulations when you just bypass them. At a minimum I hope the lawyers get the $400M+/- from the federal government that was spent permitting a mine that was approved yet denied.
To meet the goals set out in the Paris accord and our own dually elected president Joe Biden's, Critical Minerals initiative.. estimates the world needs to permit and construct 1/3 to 1/2 as many new copper mines a year for the next 30 as in current production... It's taken us 100 to get where we are today. Selecting the best project to develop that are economic. We arent going to make it happen, especially killong them off left and right... Pebble, Twin Metals and a few yet to come. There isn't that many economical viable mines. Reserve/resources doesn't equal money to finance and build it. Killing them one by one doesn't help. We will need twice the copper we are mining now to meet future demands, not just the green revolution. Hopefully technology will help bridge the gap.
Most mines are running at capacity, and depleting orebody. As the price goes up for copper they can reduce their cutoff grade. And squeeze a bit more resource from current projects but it will be at a lower production. There is zero chance we can meet demand from current mines. We don't have the luxury of time to continue to shut down projects of we plan to decarbonize the world. It's not just in the US that obstruction is happening. Same goes for lithium and graphite. There is going to be global shortage all around to meet the goals of Paris Accord. There aren't enough miners, geologists, engineers or more importantly, investors willing to dump money into projects with questionable return timelines. Investing in mining has worse connotation than investing in O/G in US. Interesting times ahead, Pebble or not.
