Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 259

Thread: If not Pebble where? Not here either, right?

  1. #1
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default If not Pebble where? Not here either, right?

    For all the naysayers and mine-haters, what do you say about Chuitna? Lets hear all the nefarious statements about the "fragile ecosystem" of the Chuitna and how its heaven on earth.

    Wait. I thought we heard that line with ANWR? And Pebble. And the Chukchi. Same question as usual. If not here, where?

    Btw, whose fault is it that we don't burn coal? We have more coal than any other state in the union and we ship it to China. Whose fault is that? Why aren't we burning coal? Anyone want to take a stab at that one?

    http://www.adn.com/2011/10/24/213658...n-against.html

    Tim

  2. #2
    Member DannerAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whiskey River
    Posts
    1,161

    Default

    You must have run out of people in your neighborhood and office to argue with. Ever fished an Illiamna Lake tributary? Hunted Browns on the Peninsula?

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    fishhook, ak
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    gas is easier to transport and cleaner to burn. There are several locations in Alaska that burn coal. EPA legislation is the primary reason that more coal isn't burnt on the railbelt for power.

    Decisions cannot be made based on economic logic alone....values, politics, and the tradeoffs between different scenarios are intricately intertwined. Scientific facts are presented as opinions, and opinions are misconstrued as facts.

    Rational discussion rarely rules the day, because most people are not interested in considering contrasting perspectives.

    Also, many people tend to incite inflammatory discourse rather than actually doing some research on their own...

  4. #4
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    I'm against anything that brings more people to live here
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  5. #5
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    Guess you didn't read the article, Danner? Btw, Iliamna and the Alaska Peninsula aren't close to Chuitna.

    Guess I'm just sick of the same old hallow argument that its all pristine wilderness, that card has been played. Can't tell me Cook Inlet has salmon runs like Bristol Bay, so what gives? Why NOT let PacRim develop Chuitna?

    Tim

  6. #6
    Member DannerAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whiskey River
    Posts
    1,161

    Default

    I read the article. I was referring to your statement about the Pebble project.

    An outside company shouldn't be allowed to develop resources in AK and ship them to Asia leaving very little money in the state. An Alaskan company, say Usibelli, should develop more coal deposits like the one they are pursuing between Palmer and Sutton.

    Cook Inlet streams opposite Anchorage receive strong Salmon Runs. Would you trade 25 years of strip mining for a renewable resource that feeds much more than a few humans?

  7. #7
    Member Frostbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Alaska - I wasn't born here, but I got here as soon as I could!
    Posts
    3,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DannerAK View Post
    I read the article. I was referring to your statement about the Pebble project.

    An outside company shouldn't be allowed to develop resources in AK and ship them to Asia leaving very little money in the state. An Alaskan company, say Usibelli, should develop more coal deposits like the one they are pursuing between Palmer and Sutton.

    Cook Inlet streams opposite Anchorage receive strong Salmon Runs. Would you trade 25 years of strip mining for a renewable resource that feeds much more than a few humans?
    Define "very little money".

  8. #8
    Member DannerAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whiskey River
    Posts
    1,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostbitten View Post
    Define "very little money".
    2% which is "very little money" and not enough IMO...here is a blip from: http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/I...ue-Alaska.html
    "Alaska's mineral industry was worth almost $3 billion in 2009, but paid less than 2% to state and local governments, counting all forms of taxes, fees, and royalties. Taxes on other industries are much higher: the oil and gas industry paid about 20% of its market value, and the fishing industry paid around 5%. While low taxes for mining are attractive to corporations, some organizations and legislatures argue that they don't represent a fair long-term value for Alaska's resources, particularly since the vast majority of mining corporations are not Alaskan."

  9. #9
    Member Frostbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Alaska - I wasn't born here, but I got here as soon as I could!
    Posts
    3,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DannerAK View Post
    2% which is "very little money" and not enough IMO...here is a blip from: http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/I...ue-Alaska.html
    "Alaska's mineral industry was worth almost $3 billion in 2009, but paid less than 2% to state and local governments, counting all forms of taxes, fees, and royalties. Taxes on other industries are much higher: the oil and gas industry paid about 20% of its market value, and the fishing industry paid around 5%. While low taxes for mining are attractive to corporations, some organizations and legislatures argue that they don't represent a fair long-term value for Alaska's resources, particularly since the vast majority of mining corporations are not Alaskan."
    Assuming that number is accurate, this only references the taxes, fees and royalties paid to state and local government. How much other (non-gov't) money would the operation(s) bring to the state...such as wages, housing, construction projects, local retail business etc, etc, etc?

  10. #10
    Member Frostbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Alaska - I wasn't born here, but I got here as soon as I could!
    Posts
    3,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DannerAK View Post
    2% which is "very little money" and not enough IMO...here is a blip from: http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/I...ue-Alaska.html
    "Alaska's mineral industry was worth almost $3 billion in 2009, but paid less than 2% to state and local governments, counting all forms of taxes, fees, and royalties. Taxes on other industries are much higher: the oil and gas industry paid about 20% of its market value, and the fishing industry paid around 5%. While low taxes for mining are attractive to corporations, some organizations and legislatures argue that they don't represent a fair long-term value for Alaska's resources, particularly since the vast majority of mining corporations are not Alaskan."
    BTW, $60 million is $60 million. Call it "very little money" if you want.

  11. #11
    Member dkwarthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mat-Su
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Maybe we ought to invite Massey and Peabody up to help PacRim excavate that stream and then reclaim it 25 years from now. I hear they've accomplished wonderful things in West Virginia....landscaping wise, I mean.

  12. #12
    Member DannerAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whiskey River
    Posts
    1,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkwarthog View Post
    Maybe we ought to invite Massey and Peabody up to help PacRim excavate that stream and then reclaim it 25 years from now. I hear they've accomplished wonderful things in West Virginia....landscaping wise, I mean.
    Good call! I've spent time in WV and you can tell it used to be pretty nice. Fishing was good if you consider catching 6-10" hatchery brookies good. And the economy there, well, as good as the landscaping.

  13. #13
    Member DannerAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whiskey River
    Posts
    1,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostbitten View Post
    BTW, $60 million is $60 million. Call it "very little money" if you want.
    2% is very little.

    So I can come and clearcut your backyard, sell the timber, and give you 2%? This doesn't take into account the chainsaw, chains, files, chaps, helmet, fuel, oil, etc, etc, etc I'll purchase locally. I'll even reseed alder for ya before I walk away.

  14. #14
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    I'm firing from the hip on this one in that I haven't read the article. I will go back and do so later, but I'm a bit short on time. If these issues are addressed in the article, I'm certainly willing to consider the merit of the arguments made.

    1 - My problem with Chuitna is that, to the best of my understanding, they're planning to remove 12 miles of salmon habitat. Actually digging up miles and miles of riverbed is a step too far, in my opinion. Frankly, I think that more development in Alaska is the environmentally wise choice in that we have some of the most stringent environmental regulations in the world. That being said, digging up stream beds that host robust salmon runs is a terrible idea and is not worth the economic benefit.

    2 - I would be fully in favor of us using our own coal resources, but burning it is a terrible idea. Burning coal (even "clean" coal) results in massive amounts of mercury being released into the atmosphere along with its effects on neurological development in humans and other animals. Coal can be used much more wisely through processes such as underground coal gasification (a technology being pursued by CIRI in hopes that coal deposits on their land can be used). As it stands now, though, using natural gas is a far wiser choice.

    I know you're pro-development, Tim, but there are better ways to do things than just stripping up earth and burning toxin-laden materials. If it can be done better - if our resources can be used while still protecting salmon and keeping neurotoxins out of the air and water, why not?

  15. #15
    Member Frostbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Alaska - I wasn't born here, but I got here as soon as I could!
    Posts
    3,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DannerAK View Post
    2% is very little.

    So I can come and clearcut your backyard, sell the timber, and give you 2%? This doesn't take into account the chainsaw, chains, files, chaps, helmet, fuel, oil, etc, etc, etc I'll purchase locally. I'll even reseed alder for ya before I walk away.
    Absolutely! The resource has no appreciable value unless it's harvested, there's no one else lined up to do it, and $$ is $$. Need my address?

  16. #16
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    OK, I went ahead and read the article. This part jumped out at me:

    Part of PacRim's plan calls for the removal of 11 miles of Middle Creek, a tributary deemed by the Department of Fish and Game to be significant to salmon spawning in Cook Inlet. The company claims it would be able to restore the stream after more than 25 years of the mine's operation.

    Sullivan ruled "that reclamation is technologically feasible."
    That last line indicates to me that Sullivan and Pacrim have absolutely no clue what they're talking about. I have a good friend who has worked for more than 30 years in helping cities and states rebuild damage river systems. Though much good can be done, as he tells it, reclaiming and restoring a river system to its original state is simply not possible. Perhaps the state is willing to deal with the trade-off between the river system and the coal resource - if so, fine - but to state that such reclamation is technologically feasible is outright false.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Homer
    Posts
    49

    Default

    The Once-ler cometh.......

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tccak71 View Post
    For all the naysayers and mine-haters, what do you say about Chuitna? Lets hear all the nefarious statements about the "fragile ecosystem" of the Chuitna and how its heaven on earth.
    Sounds like tccak71 answered his own question, ALL of Alaska is indeed Heaven on Earth! That seems to pretty much cover all of both the whys and the why nots.
    Inspiration is simply the momentary cessation of stupidity.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by andweav View Post
    gas is easier to transport and cleaner to burn. There are several locations in Alaska that burn coal. EPA legislation is the primary reason that more coal isn't burnt on the railbelt for power.

    Decisions cannot be made based on economic logic alone....values, politics, and the tradeoffs between different scenarios are intricately intertwined. Scientific facts are presented as opinions, and opinions are misconstrued as facts.

    Rational discussion rarely rules the day, because most people are not interested in considering contrasting perspectives.

    Also, many people tend to incite inflammatory discourse rather than actually doing some research on their own...
    A truly outstanding post andweav. Indeed, decisions cannot be made based on economic, or ANY OTHER type of logic alone, the whole picture must always be considered.

    Personally, I'm not against mining, I'm just against large scale mining, by foreign corporations, based on bad data (or outright lies), in wet places, that disrupts sensitive habitat, and ignores alternative uses, for short term gain, leaving behind giant cleanup bills, and ongoing health effects. There's plenty of local small scale mining around that doesn't behave that way!
    Inspiration is simply the momentary cessation of stupidity.

  20. #20
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    I have been reading the Chuitna unsuitable lands petition decision that the state (Dan Sullivan - DNR) just came out with. Brian hit on some of it, what was reported in the newspapers, the widely reported "technologically feasible" justification the state gave...a salmon stream can be dug up, miles and miles of it, diverted while all that is going on, all of the associated mining activities, for 25 years, but after that it is still technologically feasible to reclaim that mined area, the stream, the salmon habitat, to where it can be put back in a "condition capable of supporting fish and wildlife."

    If that is the standard, folks, we and the salmon are screwed in the long run.

    Tim, it honestly seems just common sense to me that it's about "how" as well as "where." What lands are "unsuitable" for surface coal mining? Given the implications to salmon from so many kinds of development and habitat loss, that we all should really be aware of if we know our history, and given that there are few places left on this earth where wild salmon runs still happen in great numbers, do we trade salmon for coal? Do we trade one anadromous stream?

    This decision by our own DNR should really concern all sportsmen and women. It is "technologically feasible" to do a lot of things (in theory). But I gotta agree with Jim Rearden, when he wrote about the Chuitna coal issue and said that "
    Only God could reproduce a viable 11 miles of an Alaska salmon stream and all its fixings, and it might even take Him a few centuries. "

Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •