Public Comments on Ambler Road

[Deleted member 18333]

The general public has no idea how much mining development and production will need to increase in order to support, not only the U.S. but the worlds, desire to transition away from FF's. Estimates from 300% to 4000% increase in mined product output from current levels. Since most of this increase, if not all of it, will most likely come from other countries, we need to be realistic about how wise this strategy will be. If the only hurdle to mining development in the US was @neffa3 , then maybe salmon habitat would be the only consideration. But he isn't the only hurdle. Those hurdles started with animals, then into open spaces, then into sacred land, etc. Now we want to add "not unless they allow any Joe Dirt to drive down that road." IMO, we need to shift from the mentality that this global transition will result in less degradation to undeveloped land in the US and realize it will require more development. Pick your hurdles to development wisely or face the consequences of those decisions. My $0.02.

 

[Bambistew]

A couple comments.
1. I would argue it's not insanity to require mine discharge at levels below drinking water standards, because as shown, when a mine violates it's own permit it doesn't seek to rectify the situation, but sues. Sure they may have a claim, and initially the Buckhorn did, and their permit was reworked to allow for higher limits (2014). However, the concentrations kept increasing, violating the new thresholds. So instead of addressing the water quality they sued. They've lost every lawsuit, but keep appealing, all the while not addressing increasing water quality issues. The limits are set low, so that when a mining company takes this litigation approach there's a large buffer so that as impacts keep adding up they're not necessarily killing all the bull trout and polluting the river and aquifers while the legal system sorts it out. I don't think that if the thresholds were higher they would have stayed in compliance. They extracted 1.3 billion in gold in ~ a decade, that's a fair bit of money that could have been used to "try" to meet their permit requirement, instead they chose to pay for lawyers. All the while their concentrations continued to increase.
View attachment 247721
Red line is the revised permit level. Black line is the drinking water standard/anti degradation standard.
2. There are thread upon thread on this site alone complaining about, in essence, how some previously wild landscape is not longer as wild, is overrun with people, etc. Roosevelt himself, and later Leopold and many more after that, all professing to the unmeasurable value of wild landscapes, yet we have allowed that wild to be continually whittled away either through direct actions or through direct inactions. I do not think there is inherent fault in being overly protective of what we still have, though I will admit it is certainly easier for the lower 48-ers to support anti-economic measures in favor of more conservation in AK while we live in the land of economic opportunities. However, no rational human thinks there will be less pressure on our existing wilds or that there will be less pressure to develop those wilds. To place a value on wild that is equal to or greater than minerals is not wrong and will likely pay dividends in the future.
3. Will this road be terrible in an of itself? Probably not, in fact, it will probably be viewed as an asset. Maybe so will the next. And the next. But when does it not? And is that a line or just a slow whittling away until it's only a shell of it's former self. When do we look back and start to wish that maybe, we'd been a little more conservative in our ideas of how much wild we need, how much of it we should develop vs conserve. What will our legacy be? I don't view this as much as the lower 48 telling AK what they SHOULD do, but instead trying to not make the same mistakes that were made down here. Trying to look down the long road and leave a legacy that can be honored by those in the womb of time.

1- The graph you show is from an NGO environmental group, not that its bad or wrong, but they tend to only give half the story. The graph is from monitoring wells located on a fault downstream of the mine some 4-700ft (?) below ground at the edge of the property (not far from the mine workings). The samples taken are from a very small quantity of water very near the source, which would result in a high concentration, with even a tiny increase in loading. I'm not saying that this levels should be dismissed, and if their permit stated they couldn't increase limits, that's on them to figure out. What I'm getting at, is this water may or may not interact with groundwater downstream, and if a sample was taken down stream even a short distance, it likely be a much lower level. How far down stream before it meets, I don't know. I'm sure a hydro and geochem study was completed. I'm not arguing that they are not out of compliance, just stating that the argument by the Mine is that the compliance threshold is unreasonable. Best I could gather their argument was it the permit compliance was misunderstood at the time of issuance? They didn't sue because they didn't want to pay and have to spend some of that $1.3B they made, but every article vilifies them for it. Mine = Bad.

This constant hysteria over something that likely will amount to little or nothing environmentally, and how quickly people jump on mining companies is non-stop. Its almost always promoted by people with little to no understanding, and the mines can't take a stand because they are vilified, even for doing the right thing or doing all they can. There is no wining.

Lastly, the mine is in closure, and from what I found, would be flooded, but drawn down seasonally for freshet inflow, which is not unusual. The generation of sulfate will very likely decline rapidly as the oxygen is cut off to exposed sulfide minerals underground. The question I would have would be how long the reactive rock is exposed during the draw down or if its exposed. If there is any buffering from the water treatment brine recirculated into the mine, and other long-term effects/results of closure, all of which I'm sure are in the plan. Anticipated long-term effects downstream will hopefully be negligible at some point in the near future.

What people will remember is that Buckhorn exceeded their water water quality limits by 3000+ times.

2- 100% agree that wild places are far and few in the L48. I'm all for protection of what we have to the reasonable extent possible. I hate to see a road put through an area that you could access from another road/trail already. We literally have 7 highways in this state. The area to the west of the Parks/Haul road (north/south across AK) is 2x the size of Washington, with virtually ZERO roads through it, an area 300sh miles wide and 800 miles north to south. Adding one road in in there is hardly going to destroy anything or turn us more into WA, I kid more, because we are colony of WA. Your congressmen/senators have more sway over my state than ours do.

I would love for it to be open to the public, but that would just lead to further degradation of the the wilderness, right? Use it for mining, and reclaim it when done.

 

[Bambistew]

Honestly Bambistew, I agree with most of what you’ve said. I also try not to simplify things like mining=bad. In this particular case, I simply think the majority of Alaskan’s are so pro-resource development that we’ve cut ourselves a raw deal on this project. What’s stopping Amber Metals LLC from offering up a dividend similar to the oil PFD? I think it’s a calculated move on their part. They sense broad public support so its not needed to advance the project, and they can pocket additional profits that would otherwise benefit Alaskan residents.

I wouldn’t care if it’s smaller then our oil PFD, at least it’s something. Instead we’re asked to suck it up, or the state’s economy will collapse. I think there’s some middle ground here most of us aren’t seeing. Have you seen the prices of copper lately?

What about those 1,000+ truck drivers and mine workers you mentioned. Are you telling me they’re not going to go hunting or fishing from their own private road when they have a weekend off? The rest of us will have to pay 5k to access the same areas. Sounds like BS to me.

What's stopping them from creating a PFD? Why create a separate one when they would be paying royalties into the current PFD? All mineral development on state land pays into the PFD.

BTW Pebble promoted a similar idea, but for locals, as an "insurance" policy for low fish years. They were tared and feathered... evil foreign fish killing mining company and all. They even gifted the local native corp 1000s of shares.

You can't hunt off the Pogo Road, now or in the future.

The locals want access to hunt of the Ambler road, but of course don't want non-locals to use it. About half the people in the region are for the road, the other half against it, because they don't want the potential for competition. The half that want it, would prefer to not pay $10/gal for gas and milk.

The mine won't allow hunting, its a liability. There isn't a mine here in AK that allows hunting, well I'm not sure about Usabelli, but none of the hardrock mines allow it.

Call BS all you want, but the proposal is for for an industrial road. I'd be all for access, but won't be opposed if we don't get it either.

 

[Akcabin]

Lot of folks would like a job in the same area that they live in. So they can stay living there if they want. Expensive! Royalty and corporate taxes paid to state. Medical services. Education opportunities
Locals being able to form their own government and not depend on the state, self governance like our constitution asks. And not be totally state dependent. Laws make from folks hundreds of miles away that have nooooo clue in local cultures. Making more laws to protect them from themselves.
I believe that it can be done in a responsible manner that respects the culture

 

[Irrelevant]

Western Arctic Caribou Herd decline continues, bringing population to a third of peak size

One of the world’s biggest caribou herds is continuing a long-term population slide, according to new numbers released by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

alaskapublic.org