• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

EPA May Stop Gold Mine

Mike

Well-known member
I suppose we can forget all of our natural resources under this admin?


The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday moved against a massive mine project in Alaska which supporters say could contain billions of dollars in gold and copper, delivering a win for environmentalists who claimed the mine could endanger sockeye salmon populations.

The decision on Pebble Mine was highly anticipated, and comes after an EPA report in January found large-scale mining in the Bristol Bay watershed posed significant risk to salmon and could adversely affect Alaska Natives in the region, whose culture is built around salmon.

The agency will now examine whether to block or otherwise restrict the mine project. But that decision alone promises to significantly delay the project; whether the EPA decides to bar construction entirely remains to be seen.

The action, announced Friday, is what supporters of the proposed Pebble Mine have feared. Backers have claimed the project could yield more than 100 million ounces of gold, 80 billion pounds of copper and other precious minerals. Companies have spent millions researching and monitoring the area in an effort to assure the EPA the mine would not cause ecological damage.

But opponents of the mine have urged EPA to take steps to protect the region.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a release that scientific study has provided "ample reason to believe that the Pebble Mine would likely have significant and irreversible negative impacts" on the watershed and its salmon. The watershed produces nearly half the world's wild sockeye salmon, a fish that is important for two groups of Alaska Natives in the region, Yup'ik Eskimos and the Dena'ina.

McCarthy said the agency is exercising its authority under the Clean Water Act "to ensure protection for the world's most productive salmon fishery from the risks it faces from what could be one of the largest open pit mines on earth."

The EPA has rarely used this specific authority, which it can exercise before a permit is applied for. The agency says it has only done so 29 times in the past, and in 13 of those cases the EPA decided to take steps to limit or prohibit activity.

Regional administrator Dennis McLerran said information provided by the Pebble Limited Partnership and Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., which are working to develop the Pebble deposit, showed excavation for the mine "completely destroying" an area as large as 7 square miles and that disposal of waste material would require building three impoundments covering another 19 square miles.

In a letter being sent to officials with the state, Pebble Limited Partnership and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, McLerran also said the EPA's report estimated that discharges of dredged or fill material associated with the footprint of the mine would likely cause "irreversible loss of significant reaches" of salmon- and other fish-supporting streams, as well as extensive areas of wetlands, ponds and lakes.

Tribes and others petitioned the EPA in 2010 to protect Bristol Bay, a request that gave rise to the watershed assessment released in January and Friday's planned announcement.

Friday's action means the corps, state and those behind the mine project will be allowed to submit information to the EPA to show no "unacceptable adverse effects" to aquatic resources would result from mining-related discharges or that actions could be taken to prevent unacceptable effects to waters, according to the letter.

If McLerran is not satisfied with their response, the agency will publish proposed restrictions or prohibitions on mining at the Pebble deposit and gather public comment. There will be a second round of consultation before a final decision is made.

The entire review process could take about a year. McLerran noted that the agency, at any point, could decide further action on its part is unnecessary.
 

littlejoe

Well-known member
it don't seem to matter who's in power--the u.s. is anti mining. We staked--and paid for---thousands of uranium claims in Utah and colo---a 'lode' claim is generally about 600' by 1500'----figure maybe 22 acres. With filings and first yr 'in lieu of' assemment fee, each claim will cost at least 180$---for one yr.

And you get to 'disturb' so many sq feet per claim when you drill--and they count the road in and where your hands park. And they watch you close. Contrast the almost 10$ an acre fee on this to the blm aum charge---maybe a dime an acre on similar ground?

now, once you might get a mine up---you get to deal with emshaw----the mining version of osha. who--if they're trained in coal mines--will make you have all the explosion proof, safety rooms, alternate exits that coal mines require---even though you're after gold and digging in granite----which seldom catches on fire,at least to my knowledge---on one initial 'stroll thru' of a gold mine, they wrote over 100 citations---which must be 'corrected' or you'll get fined, for each.

contrast this to Canada----where on frontier stuff, you often only have to put up a deposit on exploration work you say you'll do---and as you get a % of work performed, they'll give you that % of your deposit back. And the guy who says he'll do the most and spend the most usually gets the prospect. And they've got 'flow thru' financing, to actually encourage investment in resource development.

I believe that almost all truly 'new' wealth comes from the ground, whether it's harvesting trees, grass, minerals, metals, gems, fuel, whatever----
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
littlejoe said:
it don't seem to matter who's in power--the u.s. is anti mining. We staked--and paid for---thousands of uranium claims in Utah and colo---a 'lode' claim is generally about 600' by 1500'----figure maybe 22 acres. With filings and first yr 'in lieu of' assemment fee, each claim will cost at least 180$---for one yr.

And you get to 'disturb' so many sq feet per claim when you drill--and they count the road in and where your hands park. And they watch you close. Contrast the almost 10$ an acre fee on this to the blm aum charge---maybe a dime an acre on similar ground?

now, once you might get a mine up---you get to deal with emshaw----the mining version of osha. who--if they're trained in coal mines--will make you have all the explosion proof, safety rooms, alternate exits that coal mines require---even though you're after gold and digging in granite----which seldom catches on fire,at least to my knowledge---on one initial 'stroll thru' of a gold mine, they wrote over 100 citations---which must be 'corrected' or you'll get fined, for each.

contrast this to Canada----where on frontier stuff, you often only have to put up a deposit on exploration work you say you'll do---and as you get a % of work performed, they'll give you that % of your deposit back. And the guy who says he'll do the most and spend the most usually gets the prospect. And they've got 'flow thru' financing, to actually encourage investment in resource development.

I believe that almost all truly 'new' wealth comes from the ground, whether it's harvesting trees, grass, minerals, metals, gems, fuel, whatever----

Almost but not quite true my friend.

The Indians stopped a big mine - gold - in BC just a while back by lobbying our equivalent of your environmental protection agency - financed by MY tax dollars and money from special interest groups run by actors and eco-nazis.

Taseko gets to sit on huge deposits of gold and copper - while the Indian gets to continue collecting my tax dollars - lots of jobs went by the way side

bc
 
Top