Mining and the Law: What if we don't get a gas pipeline?

I don't know whether Alaskans will ever see a gas pipeline or not. Of course, I hope we will, but if we don't, how will we pay the cost of operating the state? We know these things. The all-Alaska pipeline has been kicking around for decades but hasn't come to pass. The prices of oil and gas have peaked and now turned down. Gov. Murkowski dedicated four years in a full court press to bring the major producers to an agreement but has yet to close the deal and, allegedly, had to give up perhaps even more than it was worth, to bring the state within striking distance.

We know that production from the North Slope is waning. It will not continue to pay the freight for the state. The tourism industry is unlikely to fill the gap, if for no other reason than because we cannot count on people always wanting to come to Alaska. I don't pretend to know much about the fishing industry beyond what I read in the newspaper, but it would appear that fishing is maxed out. It provides cash to the rural economy and to Seattle, but it may not be the sustaining source of revenue we need.

The Luddites have consigned the timber industry to the dustbin. There seems to be no prospect that we will ever have one again. The vast timber stands of Southeast and Southcentral Alaska are destined to grow old and die, rotting on the forest floor, so that birds and bears and beetles can have a comfortable place to live in peace. What we do have is an annual operating budget on the order of $4 billion. We have unfunded liabilities in the form of retirement benefits for former teachers and bureaucrats. We have formula programs for K through 12 education. We have other unfunded mandates that are going to have to be paid for.

Mood at convention optimistic

Recently, the Alaska Miners Association held its annual convention in Anchorage. It recorded nearly 650 registrants. The mood was optimistic. Metals prices are high, and, for the past four years at least, Alaska has engendered a reputation as a good place to do business. Alaska has tremendous resources. Modern mining is a safe and sound industry. Many known areas of mineralization are under-explored, which means there is hope for expansion.

Mining hires locally.

The jobs tend to be high-paying and long-lasting.

The industry contributes to local economies and represents a stabilizing force.

When a mine is exhausted, it restores the countryside so that its footprint cannot be detected.

Mining as an industry represents a bright spot on the horizon.

Sadly, there are those who walk among us who choose not to recognize the contribution that this industry has, does and can make.

Lawsuits against the Kensington Project in Juneau and the Rock Creek Project in Nome illustrate the point.

In the Rock Creek case, the lawsuit criticizes the Army Corps of Engineers because it did not require an Environmental Impact Statement; in the Kensington case, the Corps is criticized because, after carefully examining the environmental impacts, it allegedly came to the wrong conclusion.

One need not be a genius to recognize that the "anti" forces are arrayed, not in support of the environment, but against an industry that promises careers and cash. It is said that the Rock Creek litigation has been funded by parties who oppose the Pebble project as a ploy to make the Alaska Department of Natural Resources look biased in favor of mining. No miner has ever detected such a bias, but for those who want to block the Pebble project, attacking the state is fair game.

Alaskans don't have to like mining. They do have to like what mining means. Pipes, nails, cars and computers all start in the ground, our ground. If we are going to have to make up an annual operating budget per capita shortfall on the order of $5,000, it seems to me that a strong resource development industry ought to be a relevant part of the equation.