An Alaskan mine that may contain more than $500 billion in gold, copper and other minerals will never get dug if environmentalists get their way. The proposed Pebble Mine, near the headwaters of Bristol Bay in southwest Alaska, could yield a staggering 107 million ounces of gold, 80 billion pounds of copper and 5.6 billion pounds of molybdenum, which is used to make steel alloys. Pebble Partnership, which wants to do the digging, is so confident of the bounty beneath the ground it has spent five years and $107 million monitoring the soil, water and air in order to assure the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) it can mine without causing ecological damage. "The quantity, grade and continuity of mineralization at Pebble ... demonstrate the project's potential to be one of the great metal producers of the 21st century," said Rod Thiessen, president and CEO of Northern Dynasty Minerals, which is working on the project with London-based Anglo American. Story Here That's a lot of gold.
Concerns are always raised to large projects such as this. Frankly I take half of what the EPA reports with a grain of salt. Too much of it is politics with that agency. Look to the Keystone Pipeline as an example. A political football that is already ramping up for construction to expand after the election, regardless of who wins the White House.
From a PBS Frontline program to be aired today ( 10PM in San Diego). I wouldn't put money into this, but a lot of money is being spent on it, as some estimates are it could boost share prices about 10X.
If I thought the company could beat the EPA I would buy up their stock. The stock was $20 a share when the gold estimates were half of what they are now. The investors apparently don't think the company can beat the EPA, stock is now $2 a share.
As much as I love PMs the environment comes first in my mind. If it can't be done without ruining an environment that other species depend on for survival then it shouldn't be done at all.
But I thought there WAS no extra PM to be found in the ground, that all PM would very soon be a much declining resource, way past its peak production.
Well, that source is NOTED for being impartial, right? My problem with the whole thing is the US government single handedly destroyed the largest salmon fisheries in the world, now they wish to prevent development near any remaining salmon fisheries. If they are so concerned about the salmon, why don't they remove the dams up and down the coast from CA to WA? That would enable 1000 times more salmon to come back than could ever be affected by this project.
Even the CEO isn't convincing that he can prevent harm: "Executives at the Pebble Limited Partnership, say they have the know-how to operate an open-pit mine in the Bristol Bay region for a hundred years or more — without significant harm to salmon fishing. “I really do think you can do both,” said John Shively, chief executive of Pebble." How's that for a weak statement? Doesn't convince me.
After 5 years of study and 107 million dollars in environmental studies, I'm sure the company has a bit more to say than that.
This fight has actually been going on for several years - and I've been supporting the environmentalists every step of the way. Maybe my "pinko liberal treehugger" status is showing, but those waters, the local communities and their fisheries are far more precious than that gold.
If we don't dig that gold in the next few years, it's not going to disappear. We can go in and get it a few decades or a few centuries from now, when we have the technology to do it cleanly and cost-effectively. On the other hand, if we (or perhaps I should say "they") dig it now, it's likely to trash the fishery -- and that won't be coming back. It's easier to live with less gold than with less food.
