The mining newspaper for Alaska and Canada's North
The mining newspaper for Alaska and Canada's North
Alaska's entire D.C. delegation made appearances at annual mining convention; share views on provocative copper project
Pebble and politics are two matters that loomed large in the minds of the mining community that gathered in Anchorage for the 2012 Alaska Miners Association Convention in early November. The weight of these provocative and inexorably related matters was reflected in conversations and presentations at the annual gathering.
With the trade show and technical session portion of the AMA convention typically starting on the day after the U.S. elections, the juxtaposition of politics and mining is customary at the annual gathering.
A visit by U.S. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who won his 21st term Nov. 6 as Alaska's sole representative in the U.S. House, also has become tradition.
"The day after the election you have your convention and you have me speak. I am just waiting for the day I lose," quipped the longstanding congressman.
Once the laughter faded, Young vaulted into more sobering topics, including big government, over-reach by federal agencies and the controversial Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum project in Southwest Alaska.
"Whether you are for or against the Pebble Mine, I don't really care. What I am concerned about is that Pebble is on state land. Our pioneers picked that land for the state - part of the 103 million acres of land - and we put it up for discovery, and it was found," Young proclaimed.
Using fiery rhetoric, the congressman said that if the federal government bans the Pebble Partnership from pursuing permits to develop the enormous copper-gold-molybdenum deposit, Alaska would, in effect, be demoted to territorial status.
"If they impose a restriction on the ability to develop that mine, on the state of Alaska and the company itself, we have lost the state of Alaska," he told the miners Nov. 7.
No option for pre-emptive strike
Young's anxiety, which mirror's the concern of Alaska's resource development community, is centered on the potential outcome of a study the U.S. Environmental Agency carried out on the Bristol Bay Watershed, a 15-million-acre region of Southwest Alaska where the massive Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum deposit is located.
This Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, which could result in a ban of the development of Pebble project before developers have an opportunity to apply for permits, is currently being finalized by EPA.
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Army Corps of Engineers is charged with issuing permits for discharge into wetlands. Some 130 million acres of Alaska, about the combined area of California and Kentucky, are considered wetlands. Much of this vast expanse, including the location of Pebble, is treeless areas of moist and wet tundra underlain by a permanently frozen layer that prohibits water drainage.
Although the Corps has been relegated the authority over the discharge permits on these wetlands, the EPA was granted the power to prohibit, restrict, or deny CWA Section 404 permits that poses an unacceptable adverse impact to fisheries or other water uses.
A group opposed to the development of Pebble petitioned the EPA to use this veto power to pre-emptively deny the Pebble Partnership discharge permits that would be needed to build a mine at the world-class copper-gold-molybdenum deposit. Responding to the request, the environmental agency initiated the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment to see if this unprecedented stretch of its authority is justified.
"The EPA was asked to shut us down before we go into permitting, something that has not been done to a project in the history of our country," Pebble Partnership CEO John Shively told his counterparts during the miners convention.
Though EPA vigorously denies it has predetermined whether to exercise its veto authority, the draft assessment published by the agency in surmises that development of Pebble may pose a threat to a world-class salmon fishery found there.
"They developed a mine that could not be permitted and then went on to show people that since it could not be permitted it would kill fish," Shively summarized.
Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Mark Begich, D-Alaska told the mining community gathered at the AMA convention that they would stand up against any effort by the EPA to deny the Pebble Partnership its right to have its copper-gold-molybdenum project vetted by the permitting process.
"A pre-emptive veto makes no more sense than a pre-emptive approval," is a message Murkowski reiterated during her speech at the Nov. 8 luncheon at the AMA convention.
This sentiment was echoed by her Democratic counterpart in the Senate.
"We made it very clear to the administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, that there is no room, no option, no opportunity for any pre-emptive strike," Sen. Begich told the mining community Nov. 9.
Murkowski went on to say the Pebble Partnership has a right to due process.
"The fact is: A mine that causes irreparable harm to fisheries is not going to receive permits, it's not going to happen, but mining projects that haven't applied for permits shouldn't be deprived of the right to do so," said Alaska's senior senator. "There is a process out there, and there is a reason for that process. We can't have the outcome of development decisions based on a kind of check-the-box exercise from an agency that may have already made up its mind."
Assessment scrutinized
Whether by chance or design, three days following the 2012 U.S. elections and on the final day of the AMA convention, EPA released the final peer review report for its draft Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment; checking off another box as it advance the study toward finalization.
A 12-person panel was charged with scrutinizing the EPA draft watershed assessment, a report that confirms Bristol Bay is a world-class salmon region and describes potential risks that large-scale mining may pose to the fishery.
While the peer review report did not produce any new information, Pebble opposition was quick to seize the opportunity to advance its position.
"The peer review report underscores what we've known all along: mining on the scope and scale of Pebble simply cannot co-exist with Bristol Bay's fish," Tim Bristol, program director, Trout Unlimited, said. "We call on President Obama to implement necessary protections for this sportsman's paradise."
Though the peer review panel did not make any judgments on the risks a mine in the Bristol Bay watershed may pose on the fish there, it did find EPA's assessment lacking on several fronts.
"The peer review panel's recommendations make it clear that the EPA has a lot of work left to do if the goal is to issue a scientifically-sound document," Murkowski commented on the report.
Based on the input provided by the panel, EPA said it is taking the following steps to bolster its assessment:
Clarifying the overall purpose and objective of the assessment;
Clarifying the development and use of a realistic mining scenario;
Expanding the use of the conceptual models to better illustrate how mining activities could potentially affect Bristol Bay's fishery resources; and,
Enhancing the review of modern mining practices to consider additional strategies for mitigation of potential adverse impacts of mining.
Once EPA addresses the issues raised by the peer reviewers, the agency said it will convene a group of qualified experts to review the revised draft assessment before releasing a final version.
EPA had previously said it planned to publish the finalized assessment around the end of 2012. The regulatory agency has not indicated whether the additional layer of scrutiny will affect this date.
Cannot be fixed
The Alaska Miners Association contends that the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment was flawed from conception and cannot be fixed. Other resource development advocates reason that the unprecedented assessment prior to project proposal sets a dangerous precedent and adds another layer to an already burdensome permitting process in the United States.
Bob Loefler, a visiting professor at the University of Alaska Anchorage Institute of Social and Economic Research, articulated the miners association's argument during a Nov. 8 presentation at the 2012 AMA convention.
Loefler, who is also a partner in the Jade North environmental consultancy firm, said the uniqueness of mine designs, mining conditions and the creative solutions companies come up with to address environmental issues makes it impossible to forecasting what impacts a hypothetical mine will have until a mine-design is proposed.
"A pre-design assessment will always use incorrect mine design features (because the design has not been done); it will always lack important environmental features of the site (because most or all of the facility sites have not been identified); and it will omit prevention and mitigation measures (because they have not been identified by the company or the government). For these reasons, the pre-design ecological risk assessment is an unsupportable methodology that cannot produce reliable conclusions," Loefler wrote.
Alaska Oil and Gas Association Executive Director Kara Moriarty told the miners at the convention that her organization is concerned that if the EPA is left unchecked it will only be a matter of time before these pre-permitting studies spill into other resource sectors, such as oil and gas.
Murkowski agrees.
"If EPA should decide to deny the Pebble Partnership the benefit of due process, ladies and gentlemen, I'm afraid it may just be the first of many times that we may see that abuse of process; so we simply can't allow it to happen," the senator said.
Once the Pebble Partnership submits permit applications under the National Environmental Policy Act, state and federal regulatory agencies would have at least three-and-a-half years to review the applications and exercise proper authorities - providing the EPA plenty of time to complete a thorough study before development began.
Given this rigorous environmental permitting process, Moriarty said it makes no sense to carry out additional reviews before permitting even begins.
According to a 2012 study by the Beher Dolbear Group, three-and-a-half years would actually be a fast-track for a mine like Pebble to get permitted in the United States. Out of 26 countries evaluated by the international mining advisory group, the United States, at seven to 10 years, is tied for last place with Papua New Guinea when it comes to the length of time it takes to get a proposed mining project through the permitting process.
Dan McGroarty, president of the American Resources Policy Network, told the mining community gathered at the 2012 AMA Convention that the EPA assessment adds to this already arduous seven-to-10-year permitting process.
ARPN is a Washington D.C.-based organization that advocates for less foreign dependency on minerals that can be produced in the United States.
"It is hard enough to fight to get through the permitting process," he said. "Can you imagine that we enter a period of time that you have to fight to get into the permitting process?"
Over his more than 16 years of covering mining and mineral exploration, Shane has become renowned for his ability to report on the sector in a way that is technically sound enough to inform industry insiders while being easy to understand by a wider audience.
Reader Comments(0)