Salmon Lovers, Put Up or Shut Up

[BigHornyRam]

I have a compromise for the dam breaching advocates. You and one million other salmon lovers pitch in 3 grand appiece into an interest bearing bond. Total bond necessary for implementation would be 3 billion. This figure could be negotiated. It shouldn't be to difficult to accomplish this since there is such strong support for the salmon in the Northwest according to Buzz.

If there is no net costs involved in dam breaching after 10 years, then each contributor gets his or her money back plus accumulated interest. If there is cost associated with dam breaching then it is mitigated through this bond.

Buzz, armed with all his data, is positive that dam breaching will save us money, not cost. So this should be a real easy, no risk call for the salmon lovers. Get the bond in place, get my blessing for dam breaching, and then proceed. Any takers out there?

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-19-2003 07:12: Message edited by: Paul C ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paul,

Interesting idea, but I think I will pass. With all due respect, I don't see a real need to organize 1 million people to put up $3000 just to get Paul C's approval.

I am sure you are important, and all, but I think it will be even more important to convince the correct judge of the merits.

Do you really think that people would be that motivated to organize 1 million people, just to get the Paul "stamp of approval?

And I will likely put up $3000 in the next 10 years, (and deduct 38% on taxes) for the Cause.

So given the above, do I have to "shut up", or am I adequately "putting up"?

 

[BigHornyRam]

Elkgunner,

Paul's approval is manditory, no bond, no breach! You decide.

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-19-2003 09:12: Message edited by: Paul C ]</font>

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, nobody needs your approval for dam breaching.

Why should dam breaching advocates have to post a bond anyway?

Maybe we should have required the USFWS, Army Corps of engineers, BPA, etc. to post a bond on their "promise" to mitigate salmon and steelhead loses due to dams like Grand Coulee, Dworshak, etc. Sportsmen were promised 10-12 percent annual returns from hatcheries, the reality is .4 percent return. I wonder how much 11.6% of those lost runs is worth....apparently in excess of 90 million per year to Idahos economy. Lets see...30 years of .4 percent returns mulitiplied by lost economy of 90 million a year...looks like the sportsmen, merchants, etc. in Idaho are owed about 270+ million.

Where were you Paul when the dams should have been posting bonds to ensure salmon and steelhead runs wouldnt becomed listed?

Your bond idea, while not a bad one, should work both ways...dont you think?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-19-2003 16:41: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Buzz,

Your math is fuzzy. 90million times 30 years is WAYYYYYYY more than 270 million. Try 2.7 Billion, plus interest, is way more than Pauls 3 billion...

 

[Ithaca 37]

30 years x 90 million = 2.7 BILLION $

Don't forget what the taxpayers have paid in subsidies too. Below is a very conservative estimate.

"Restoring the Lower Snake River would produce an economic benefit of $87 million each year. This includes the costs of replacing Snake River hydro-power, ending the barge transportation system, and buying out the thirteen farms that use Lower Snake water for irrigation."

That's from the economic analysis in Buzz's "Choke on the facts.." topic.

Paul, No rational person could advocate leaving the four Snake River Dams the way they are. And we sure don't care about your approval for breaching them. Why don't you try defending them with some facts---not just all your uninformed fantasies.

 

[BuzzH]

Looks like all that college algebra was worthwhile.

Good thing I wasnt a math major.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Elkgunner,

I thought you were smarter then that. $3000 tax deffered returned with interest, no risk, or $3000 tax exempt with all proceeds going to a scum bag lawyer? Since Ithaca is so @#)(# sure that dam breaching will save taxpayers money, then I would allow the bond posters to share in some of the potential revenue produced and monies saved.

But if you still want to go the legal route, better do it soon. Liberals are on the verge of going extinct in this country. Finding the "right" judge in the future could be a difficult task.

Buzz,

"Your bond idea, while not a bad one, should work both ways...dont you think?"

Have you tried to start a mining project lately?

I think the reason why you guys are opposed to my bond idea is because you know you couldn't find enough finacial support from your pals. If you really cared about the salmon, you wouldn't be such cheapskates! Ask Ted T, maybe he could kick in a couple mil.

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-20-2003 10:06: Message edited by: Paul C ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paul,,

I am not as smart as I look

but thanks for the compliemnt....

Actually, if we were to organize the "Convince Paul it is OK Bond Fund", we wouldn't have to put up $3000 today for the fund, as you said we needed $3 Billion in 10 years. Therefore, we would have to pony up some lesser amount, when invested at the risk free rate of return, would yield the desired amount in 10 years.

And I wouldn't think of giving MY money to any scumbag lawyers.

I like to think I give to honorable lawyers. It is kind of funny, but many of my good friends are lawyers, and none of them are scumbags, and in fact, they are all incredibly smart people, so I enjoy their company, and providing me intellectual challenge....

Kind of like with you, I enjoy your replies, as your comments are a bit better thought out, your experiences are a bit broader, and your demeanor is pleasant enough, at least toward me.

And back to my $$$$, along the way, not only will the dams come down, but the cattle will get off my land, the rivers will flow freely, and I will have a few more Elk to gun... I kind of like that side effect of my investment into the Legal system

As for the judges, I hope the one's who can see the wisdom of Enforcing Laws on the Books will never become in short supply. That is a fundamental of our democracy, anything less is anarchy.

Keep in mind, these judges never create laws, as there has to be a suit with an apropriate Cause of Action for the Judge to rule on. Just enforcing the laws on the books.....

Cheers, it is 5am on Wednesday in Tokyo, and I am up for the day....

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, ever look into the bond amounts for a couple of the mines in MT?

Apparently not or you'd know the bonds dont cover jack diddly when something goes to crap with a mine.

Hows the State doing on the Zortman Landusky superfund site? Why is it a superfund site? You mean the bond isnt covering all the cleanup? What the hell! I guess the bond posted wasnt quite enough.

How about the upper Clark Fork? Once again, superfund site, once again, the bond(s) didnt cover crap.

To answer your question, no I havent looked into bonding on mines lately, but I've looked into some from about 7-8 years ago. However, I got a buddy who recently retired after working close to 40 years in several states for several large mining companies. He told me its assumed that any bond posted will be forfeited, and the company doesnt even care, or for that matter try, to save their bond. Just factor it in as an expense and cut the fat hog in the ass and run with the profits, usually to Canada (at least with many of the MT mines). Let the state and feds clean up the mess. Case in point the Zortman/Landusky mess.

Another great compromise by Paul.

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, a quick web search of the Zortman mine yielded all sorts of facts, for instance:

An environmental impact statement that analyzed various alternatives for reclamation concluded that the most protective plan would cost $63.5 million—$33.5 million more than the reclamation performance bond posted by Pegasus, which the State has cashed.
But instead of adopting the best plan identified in the EIS, the agencies issued a contingent decision stating that the best plan will be implemented only if Congress comes up with the additional $33.5 million. If that fails, then a clearly inadequate plan will be executed.

What a great deal for the state and tax payer, hell its only 33.5 million that the bond is short!

Theres only 22mg/L of cyanide in the creek near the mine, in 2 years they only had EIGHT major cyanide spills, the drinking water in Zortman only has 3mg/L of cyanide in it...

Paul, care to get your drinking water from Zortman?

Lets hear it for that 30 million bond the Pegasus Corp posted!

The thing I cant figure out is they want the state and feds to share in half the costs of repairing the frickin mess they made...but they sure didnt share half their profits with the state...I cant believe it

Who would have thought that?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-20-2003 16:59: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Buzz,

Add Stibnite mine in Idaho, with inadequate bond amounts posted by Canadian companies, who just walk away from the token amount, and leave us with an EPA SuperFund site...

 

[Ithaca 37]

How would Paul feel about it if we posted his bond on the dams and then forfeit? I suppose it would be OK with him. After all, it's OK when the mines forfeit.

The resource exraction crowd is always real quiet about that!

Anyone who trusts the mining companies is crazy!

 

[BigHornyRam]

"How would Paul feel about it if we posted his bond on the dams and then forfeit? I suppose it would be OK with him. After all, it's OK when the mines forfeit. The resource exraction crowd is always real quiet about that!"

This is exactly why you need to post a large bond. If you forfeit then the bond amount should be able to mitigate the damage left to clean up.

Buzz again uses a past example as if it were what is happening today. The Zortman mine is a good example of why mines SHOULD post large bonds prior to digging. If it cost the unscrupulous mining company less to forfeit the bond then clean up the mess, then chances are, they will walk.

And this is exactly why I am proposing a bond for breaching. If your numbers are wrong, or something was over looked, then someone needs to be held accountable. Since all your data is in fact flawless, again I ask PUT UP OR SHUT UP. No bond, no breach.

Paul

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paul,

Go ask your Republican represenatives in Congress when they plan on reforming the Mining Act of 1872......

That is what drives these issues, and, at least in Idaho, our Senior senator refuses to acknowledge a problem. I believe he views Super Fund sites as employment opportunities, and jobs he brought to the state.

I would hope that the bond for Extraction industries would be a bit higher than a bond for a habitat improvement project, so I think your analogy misses the point.

The behaviour of the Canadian companies that have abandon these mines is deplorable, and I would find it a stretch to think that their positions are defensible.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Elkgunner,

Two issues I can 100% agree with you on. The Mining Act of 1872 should be shit canned, and the behavior of the Canadian mining companies have been deplorable. I'm sure there are other issues we agree on as well.

Paul

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paul,
Does this mean we will now agree, that I can use Public Lands how I want, including throwing my beer cans out along the road, near your house??

 

[Lostagain]

wow elk, you and PC are pretty close to arguing the same thing, just from a different point. Thanks you two.

As far as ANY action in the enviro, the bond paid should be as much is needed to repair any damage, and personally I think the individual, not a corp should be held responsible.

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, find an example of a mining company posting a bond that HAS covered their damage in the past. For that matter, how about an example of a current one posting a bond close to 63 million.

Oh, and the Zortman mine shut down operations in 1995-96. Seven years ago isnt that long ago...and the mess still isnt cleaned up.

LA, what are you trying to say, an individual should be responsible for a corporations liability? Thats as #$#@ed up as a football bat.

How many individuals could the state hold liable for a 60-70 million dollar cleanup cost? The only chance the state has to recoup loses is to hold the Corporation liable. Thats the whole reason for forming corportations, so that individuals, employees, etc. can not be sued for personal assets...the corporation assumes the risk, profit, and liability.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Elkgunner,

I still won't agree with you on the beer can issue being the rabid enviro I am. And I still think most lawyers are scum bags.

Paul