On 7 October, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner published a column entitled, "Seductive 'silver': Pebble project is ethically and environmentally indefensible." I think the title conveys that Eric Forrer, the author, is against the Pebble Mine project like many, if not most, Alaskans. I know very little about the specifics of Pebble. There were concerns about the seismic stability of the tailings impoundment, acid mine drainage, and the general despoiling of nearly pristine wilderness. Complicating all of that, the deposit sits in the headwaters of one of the last great salmon fisheries in the world.
My intention is not to counter these arguments, as many of them are valid questions. Most of them are also out of my area of expertise on the subject. All that said, I think it is interesting that most of the opposing arguments are not actually about mining. Salmon fisheries were destroyed in the North Atlantic because of fishing. Similar mismanagement of fishing destroyed the salmon runs of the Pacific Northwest (in both the US and Canada). Damns, logging, and other industries also had a severe effect on the fish, but mining is not the culprit in the destruction of any salmon fisheries. Yet, the fishing companies are a major opponent of the mine to protect the fish. If fishing is judged by the same rubric as mining, than I can see no way to argue that fishing is not also what Forrer calls an "environmental Armageddon."
The problem with mining is not the environmental catastrophes that it has caused, it is that people recognize a mine, and blame mining for the environmental problems they see. In the Appalachians, for example, the historic mines remain, but the old growth forests do not. Logging caused as much, if not more water contamination that killed streams, but since the trees are gone, it is hard for people to even imagine that from the east coast to Minnesota was once covered with endless forests of ancient trees, teeming with game.
Extractive industries are not the only ones that have horrific histories. It should not be forgotten that farming was once carried out largely by slaves in this country. That Henry Ford's plants were a model for union busting, corrupt police, corporate evil, and, lest we forget, antisemitism. Every industry has skeletons in the closet. The Cuyahoga River has caught fire 13 times, not owing to mining. Love Canal, perhaps on of the most important environmental contamination cases for creating both environmental law, and precedence in dealing with liability law, was the dump site of 21,000 tons of toxic waste by a chemical company, not mining. Perhaps the most important mining environmental disaster was Summitville, CO.
Summitville Mine has a long history of environmental issues. Modern discovery of gold at Summitville happened in the late 19th century, but mining in the district had been undertaken by the Spanish, and, if memory serves, during pre-Columbian times. By the middle of the 20th century, mining had largely exhausted the resource until technological improvements gave mining heap leaching and inexpensive haulage. Colorado issued a permit that, based on the geology, arguably should never have been issued. The company was mismanaged, the mining was done poorly, and ultimately the result was an environmental catastrophe that should have been prevented by state and federal mining regulations and permitting bodies (too lax regulations do not help mining).
The point of this digression is that mining is judged by the failings of the past, yet most other industries are forgiven their trespasses. In 2005 the Lisbon Valley Mine became the first copper mine to open in the US in 10 years, and to my knowledge, no copper mine has opened since then. Which means in the last 17 years, there is but one mine using the newest technology. Much has changed in those 17 years, and the technologies present in a mine that opened today would be as different as the technologies found in the American home over the last two decades. It does not make mining without risk, but it does question the validity of an argument in opposition to mining based on technologies from 20 to 150 years ago.
Mining then, is no more environmentally indefensible than any other industry. I went to the Banff Mountain Film Festival World Tour last night in Duluth, and one of the films featured several long time-elapse photography scenes of reservoirs in the Canadian Rockies. The impact of dams on the natural environment are just as bad, if not worse than mining, yet they were being featured as things of beauty, and I assume that I was fairly alone in the audience cursing the Canadians (and an American filmmaker) for selling Hetch Hetchy-like projects as natural wonders. I imagine that even Eric Forrer would not argue so strongly against the dams of the US and Canada as he does against the Pebble Mine.
The trouble I see for Mr. Forrer when it comes to Pebble is that it is likely the world's second largest copper deposit. Beyond that, world class deposits do not occur alone. Along the Alaska Peninsula there are undoubtedly numerous enormous deposits, much like those found in Chile. This copper district, including the Pebble Mine, could be done properly, mined in Alaska, under strict EPA and state regulation. This could provide wealth to the Alaska, that if used wisely, could develop infrastructure that would have long lasting, environmentally positive effects on the state.
The first part of this is strict regulation. As an undergraduate, I toured a molybdenum mine. One of the mine engineers admitted to the class that the Sierra Club actually helps them mine better. He said that the Sierra Club sends engineers and lawyers, experts in the field, to review their plans, and point out things where mining could be done better. He contrasted this against Greenpeace, who, according to him, simply looked for ways to be obstreperous. I cannot help but see most of the Alaskans (and non-Alaskans) who are seeking to block the Pebble Mine as being like Greenpeace, looking to stop the project, rather than make regulations logical, strict, well-enforced, and, like the Alaska Constitution, a model of how good government works to protect the best interests of its people.
The second part of this is that mining Pebble has to be worth the risk, and loss of wilderness to society. The revenue should be taxed, and that money should not go into further tax breaks for the oil industry, nor should it go into the permanent fund dividend, but it should go into schools, hospitals, roads, railroads, communications, air traffic control infrastructure, and alternative energy technologies. Alaska could not only be a model for responsible, green mining, but also for what a state can look like when people collaborate, and create a place that is nice to live in now, and for generations to come.
I think it is unlikely that Alaskans have it in them to do this though. Based on the results of the recent election in Alaska, most of the people who oppose Pebble Mine on the basis of environmental concerns support the Republican Party's mission to weaken environmental regulation. The same people who would rather have a multi-billion dollar investment nationalized for environmental reasons argue against taxes, and for "small" government. Because of this attitude, I think that the potential of what the Pebble Mine could be will be lost.
Though it will not be lost to a wilderness preserve, because Pebble will be mined.
The entire Alaska Peninsula could be turned into a National Park, or every gun-wielding Alaska could fortify the region and fire upon geologists. It does not matter what type of action the people of Alaska or the United States take against Pebble Mine, one day, it will be mined because it is thought to be the second largest copper deposit in the world.
Pebble contains an estimated 55 billion pounds of copper, along with billions of pounds and millions of ounces of other elements including molybdenum, gold, silver, rhenium, and palladium. This is a resource that society simply cannot leave in the ground. Society is hungry for these resources. The Minerals Information Institute publishes the MII Baby every year, which estimates the amount of mined natural resources an American will use over their lifetime. The 2.92 million pounds of "minerals, metals, and fuels" that will be used by a Yankee includes 969 pounds of copper. The 2008 Census predicted a population of over 400 million people in 2050, and the trend of most resources on the MII baby has been up or stable, every year I have looked at it. Calling it 1,000 pounds of copper per person, and today's population, the US needs 310 billion pounds of copper for its population, or about six Pebble Mines! Recall that Pebble is the second biggest in the world, and in production it would account for only one sixth of the copper America needs to preserve the status quo for the current population. In 2050 the US will need eight Pebble Mines (for current consumption), and in the last 17 years the US has opened one small copper mine.
Opponents of mining will argue for recycling, but the problem with recycling is that it, at 100% efficiency, produces only the amount of materials we currently have. Using worldwide production of automobiles, the problem with recycling becomes quickly evident. In 1997 about 54 million automobiles were manufactured. In 2010 it was up to nearly 78 million, or almost a 50% increase. For recycling to provide these automobiles, every car would need to be 50% smaller today than in 1997, but can cars shrink by 50% every 15 years in perpetuity? Computers require a slew of mined minerals, the plug-in Toyota Prius requires on the order of 50 pounds of rare earth elements (more than non-hybrid automobiles), and wind turbines, cell phones, and just about every other new gadget is hungry for rare earths as well, all of which needs to be mined, not just recycled, to meet current demands.
It is easy to want mining to be conducted in remote China, rather than remote Alaska, when you are an Alaskan. China is where most of the world's rare earth elements come from. China has already acknowledged that their production is not sustainable, and in as soon as 2014, China's demand for these elements will exceed their production. The United States will need to begin mining these deposits, or choose to stay married to coal power, and give up our cell phones and TVs. Why not reinvent American mining to be responsible, even green, rather than await the inevitable?
Forrer, in his column, even acknowledges the inevitability of the Pebble Mine. He thinks that Pebble will go into development when there is a favorable political climate at the federal level (which given the Obama Administration's track record on increased oil and gas production is arguably now), and he has a sad resignation about how the evil corporation will eventually triumph accordingly. In this triumph of evil, he sees only an emotional loss, and that is the biggest loss of all. Therein lies the biggest loss to society. Mr. Forrer and the Pebble opponents cite more emotion than logic. The pro-mining groups prey on the fears of people who need work. The TV commercials show either leaping salmon or poverty stricken families, and no one seems to be interested in the science and engineering that can make the Pebble Mine a success for everyone.
Development of the Pebble Mine is inevitable, as is development of the countless other major deposits that are certainly hosted in the Alaska Peninsula. The world needs commodities, and Pebble is simply too good to not mine. The question that faces Alaskans, like all questions of the inevitable, is not whether or not, but how.
My intention is not to counter these arguments, as many of them are valid questions. Most of them are also out of my area of expertise on the subject. All that said, I think it is interesting that most of the opposing arguments are not actually about mining. Salmon fisheries were destroyed in the North Atlantic because of fishing. Similar mismanagement of fishing destroyed the salmon runs of the Pacific Northwest (in both the US and Canada). Damns, logging, and other industries also had a severe effect on the fish, but mining is not the culprit in the destruction of any salmon fisheries. Yet, the fishing companies are a major opponent of the mine to protect the fish. If fishing is judged by the same rubric as mining, than I can see no way to argue that fishing is not also what Forrer calls an "environmental Armageddon."
The problem with mining is not the environmental catastrophes that it has caused, it is that people recognize a mine, and blame mining for the environmental problems they see. In the Appalachians, for example, the historic mines remain, but the old growth forests do not. Logging caused as much, if not more water contamination that killed streams, but since the trees are gone, it is hard for people to even imagine that from the east coast to Minnesota was once covered with endless forests of ancient trees, teeming with game.
Extractive industries are not the only ones that have horrific histories. It should not be forgotten that farming was once carried out largely by slaves in this country. That Henry Ford's plants were a model for union busting, corrupt police, corporate evil, and, lest we forget, antisemitism. Every industry has skeletons in the closet. The Cuyahoga River has caught fire 13 times, not owing to mining. Love Canal, perhaps on of the most important environmental contamination cases for creating both environmental law, and precedence in dealing with liability law, was the dump site of 21,000 tons of toxic waste by a chemical company, not mining. Perhaps the most important mining environmental disaster was Summitville, CO.
Summitville Mine has a long history of environmental issues. Modern discovery of gold at Summitville happened in the late 19th century, but mining in the district had been undertaken by the Spanish, and, if memory serves, during pre-Columbian times. By the middle of the 20th century, mining had largely exhausted the resource until technological improvements gave mining heap leaching and inexpensive haulage. Colorado issued a permit that, based on the geology, arguably should never have been issued. The company was mismanaged, the mining was done poorly, and ultimately the result was an environmental catastrophe that should have been prevented by state and federal mining regulations and permitting bodies (too lax regulations do not help mining).
The point of this digression is that mining is judged by the failings of the past, yet most other industries are forgiven their trespasses. In 2005 the Lisbon Valley Mine became the first copper mine to open in the US in 10 years, and to my knowledge, no copper mine has opened since then. Which means in the last 17 years, there is but one mine using the newest technology. Much has changed in those 17 years, and the technologies present in a mine that opened today would be as different as the technologies found in the American home over the last two decades. It does not make mining without risk, but it does question the validity of an argument in opposition to mining based on technologies from 20 to 150 years ago.
Mining then, is no more environmentally indefensible than any other industry. I went to the Banff Mountain Film Festival World Tour last night in Duluth, and one of the films featured several long time-elapse photography scenes of reservoirs in the Canadian Rockies. The impact of dams on the natural environment are just as bad, if not worse than mining, yet they were being featured as things of beauty, and I assume that I was fairly alone in the audience cursing the Canadians (and an American filmmaker) for selling Hetch Hetchy-like projects as natural wonders. I imagine that even Eric Forrer would not argue so strongly against the dams of the US and Canada as he does against the Pebble Mine.
The trouble I see for Mr. Forrer when it comes to Pebble is that it is likely the world's second largest copper deposit. Beyond that, world class deposits do not occur alone. Along the Alaska Peninsula there are undoubtedly numerous enormous deposits, much like those found in Chile. This copper district, including the Pebble Mine, could be done properly, mined in Alaska, under strict EPA and state regulation. This could provide wealth to the Alaska, that if used wisely, could develop infrastructure that would have long lasting, environmentally positive effects on the state.
The first part of this is strict regulation. As an undergraduate, I toured a molybdenum mine. One of the mine engineers admitted to the class that the Sierra Club actually helps them mine better. He said that the Sierra Club sends engineers and lawyers, experts in the field, to review their plans, and point out things where mining could be done better. He contrasted this against Greenpeace, who, according to him, simply looked for ways to be obstreperous. I cannot help but see most of the Alaskans (and non-Alaskans) who are seeking to block the Pebble Mine as being like Greenpeace, looking to stop the project, rather than make regulations logical, strict, well-enforced, and, like the Alaska Constitution, a model of how good government works to protect the best interests of its people.
The second part of this is that mining Pebble has to be worth the risk, and loss of wilderness to society. The revenue should be taxed, and that money should not go into further tax breaks for the oil industry, nor should it go into the permanent fund dividend, but it should go into schools, hospitals, roads, railroads, communications, air traffic control infrastructure, and alternative energy technologies. Alaska could not only be a model for responsible, green mining, but also for what a state can look like when people collaborate, and create a place that is nice to live in now, and for generations to come.
I think it is unlikely that Alaskans have it in them to do this though. Based on the results of the recent election in Alaska, most of the people who oppose Pebble Mine on the basis of environmental concerns support the Republican Party's mission to weaken environmental regulation. The same people who would rather have a multi-billion dollar investment nationalized for environmental reasons argue against taxes, and for "small" government. Because of this attitude, I think that the potential of what the Pebble Mine could be will be lost.
Though it will not be lost to a wilderness preserve, because Pebble will be mined.
The entire Alaska Peninsula could be turned into a National Park, or every gun-wielding Alaska could fortify the region and fire upon geologists. It does not matter what type of action the people of Alaska or the United States take against Pebble Mine, one day, it will be mined because it is thought to be the second largest copper deposit in the world.
Pebble contains an estimated 55 billion pounds of copper, along with billions of pounds and millions of ounces of other elements including molybdenum, gold, silver, rhenium, and palladium. This is a resource that society simply cannot leave in the ground. Society is hungry for these resources. The Minerals Information Institute publishes the MII Baby every year, which estimates the amount of mined natural resources an American will use over their lifetime. The 2.92 million pounds of "minerals, metals, and fuels" that will be used by a Yankee includes 969 pounds of copper. The 2008 Census predicted a population of over 400 million people in 2050, and the trend of most resources on the MII baby has been up or stable, every year I have looked at it. Calling it 1,000 pounds of copper per person, and today's population, the US needs 310 billion pounds of copper for its population, or about six Pebble Mines! Recall that Pebble is the second biggest in the world, and in production it would account for only one sixth of the copper America needs to preserve the status quo for the current population. In 2050 the US will need eight Pebble Mines (for current consumption), and in the last 17 years the US has opened one small copper mine.
Opponents of mining will argue for recycling, but the problem with recycling is that it, at 100% efficiency, produces only the amount of materials we currently have. Using worldwide production of automobiles, the problem with recycling becomes quickly evident. In 1997 about 54 million automobiles were manufactured. In 2010 it was up to nearly 78 million, or almost a 50% increase. For recycling to provide these automobiles, every car would need to be 50% smaller today than in 1997, but can cars shrink by 50% every 15 years in perpetuity? Computers require a slew of mined minerals, the plug-in Toyota Prius requires on the order of 50 pounds of rare earth elements (more than non-hybrid automobiles), and wind turbines, cell phones, and just about every other new gadget is hungry for rare earths as well, all of which needs to be mined, not just recycled, to meet current demands.
It is easy to want mining to be conducted in remote China, rather than remote Alaska, when you are an Alaskan. China is where most of the world's rare earth elements come from. China has already acknowledged that their production is not sustainable, and in as soon as 2014, China's demand for these elements will exceed their production. The United States will need to begin mining these deposits, or choose to stay married to coal power, and give up our cell phones and TVs. Why not reinvent American mining to be responsible, even green, rather than await the inevitable?
Forrer, in his column, even acknowledges the inevitability of the Pebble Mine. He thinks that Pebble will go into development when there is a favorable political climate at the federal level (which given the Obama Administration's track record on increased oil and gas production is arguably now), and he has a sad resignation about how the evil corporation will eventually triumph accordingly. In this triumph of evil, he sees only an emotional loss, and that is the biggest loss of all. Therein lies the biggest loss to society. Mr. Forrer and the Pebble opponents cite more emotion than logic. The pro-mining groups prey on the fears of people who need work. The TV commercials show either leaping salmon or poverty stricken families, and no one seems to be interested in the science and engineering that can make the Pebble Mine a success for everyone.
Development of the Pebble Mine is inevitable, as is development of the countless other major deposits that are certainly hosted in the Alaska Peninsula. The world needs commodities, and Pebble is simply too good to not mine. The question that faces Alaskans, like all questions of the inevitable, is not whether or not, but how.
You are so level headed about the whole thing. Work from within or with the industry or shut up. For a while, when meeting uber-liberal people, I would hesitate to talk about what I studied. Now I say it proudly because if people like you (or maybe me someday) don't work from within the industry it can't get better. Shouting from the outside about the 'evils' of an industry do nothing to reduce the need for the products and nothing to better the methods for production.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, what you said. ^
~Jessi
Yeah, I have at times felt ashamed about my field of study. I also get really tired of the minerals industry, and long to get out of it most of the time. Yet, I find myself defending it more and more because it seems like people choose to ignore what they do not want to see. Also, I will never own a bumper sticker that says, "strip mining prevents forest fires."
DeleteIndeed, this is a good, levelheaded analysis. As you know, I prefer virgin, untouched wilderness expanses and leave-no-trace practices. I viscerally dislike the look of mines and being even peripherally a part of the mining industry, but I acknowledge that I am using a computer to both read and write this response, and that I consume base and precious metals and rare earths just as much as the next Mii baby. Mining the resources available in the United States is the only responsible way to begin to meet our demands. We have modern, first-rate environmental regulations, and the health and safety standards to operate safely. I don't want a mine in my backyard, either, but rather than opposing it, I would simply move (and gladly relinquish tax dollars to support the EPA).
ReplyDeleteI think anyone who prefers a mine is lying to themselves, but so are the people who say they do not need mines.
Delete