Author Topic: Possible $500 billion gold mine found, epa says ya can't have it. (Read 3775 times)

gypsyman · « **Reply #60 on:** August 01, 2012, 01:34:27 AM »

With todays technologies, no reason to stop the mine. Let the Alaska people decide. In a fare vote. EPA is a govt. agency long known for it's overeaching of powers. gypsyman

billy_56081 · « **Reply #61 on:** August 01, 2012, 01:40:02 AM »

There will be NO toxic runoff.

Swampman · « **Reply #62 on:** August 01, 2012, 02:01:14 AM »

There always is and always will be. Plastic sheeting won't hold this stuff forever. Copper sulfate is used to kill all kinds of stuff. Huge pools of cyanide will eventually make their way into the water shed.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #63 on:** August 01, 2012, 08:30:39 AM »

There is enough cynaide in a 10# bag of potatoes to kill a man. Things can be controlled and done right.

Swampman · « **Reply #64 on:** August 01, 2012, 09:56:06 AM »

They never have been. Why would this one be different?

Victor3 · « **Reply #65 on:** August 01, 2012, 06:57:27 PM »

Quote from: Swampman on August 01, 2012, 02:01:14 AM

There always is and always will be. Plastic sheeting won't hold this stuff forever. Copper sulfate is used to kill all kinds of stuff. Huge pools of cyanide will eventually make their way into the water shed.

Copper sulfate is added to many waterways by various US govt orgs to control algae. It's also the blue crystals I buy at Home Depot to flush down the toilet to kill roots in my sewer line.

So yes, it's "used [safely] to kill all kinds of stuff."

Sourdough · « **Reply #66 on:** August 01, 2012, 07:28:46 PM »

Swampman, you are not listening. There will be no runoff. No toxic poisons released into the streams. There are now ways to control and eliminate the things you keep harping on. As I said before Alaska has the most stringent environmental laws and regulations in the nation. We can handle it. We are currently handling it with the Ft Knox Gold Mine just north of Fairbanks. With the Pogo mine 60 miles south of Fairbanks. We currently have the worlds largest Silver mine in operation here in Alaska. No one is making a fuss about it. It has the potential to be just as hazardous as Pebble has the potential to be. So what makes Pebble different than all these other mines that are currently in operation?

One thing, a man that does not want it to open because he owns a fishing lodge nearby. That is what makes Pebble different. He does not care about all the other mines, just the one in his back yard, Pebble. Lies, lies, and more lies, that is all he can come up with.

Shu · « **Reply #67 on:** August 02, 2012, 01:08:28 AM »

Todays technologies can protect the environment. America really needs to tap it's own resources and stop its foriegn dependence.

One would ask why we need our own resources when we can easily buy from the chinese who hold 1 trillion of our debt. The debtor is subservient to the lendor.

Swampman · « **Reply #68 on:** August 02, 2012, 01:58:21 AM »

I hope it's stopped. It's on public land. It will be another disaster.

Sourdough · « **Reply #69 on:** August 02, 2012, 12:52:11 PM »

It's on State Land, that was set aside for mining back in 1958, during statehood. So it needs to be mined, that is what it was set aside for. That is the reason the state chose that area when lands was set aside, and removed from the federal witholdings.

Alaska chose that land to mine, now the Feds are trying to say no mining. We will fight them as far as we need to go to get this mine open. The Heck with the EPA and outsiders that think they know what is best for us.

If you don't want this mine to open, then move to Alaska and become an Alaskan. Then you will have a voice.

Sorry I got carried away there and removed that statement. Rog

Swampman · « **Reply #70 on:** August 02, 2012, 01:31:27 PM »

What about the fact that the people who live in that area are against the land being ruined forever?

Cabin4 · « **Reply #71 on:** August 02, 2012, 01:58:57 PM »

There should be a good benefit & detriment analysis done. The larger impacts need to be considered. Imported oil is a huge consideration here.

Sourdough · « **Reply #72 on:** August 02, 2012, 03:44:02 PM »

Swampman, don't know where you keep getting that idea. Roughly 75% of the people that live there want the mine. They even put it on a ballot for vote, then moved the date to affect the outcome. The vote came up one vote against the mine, even with the rigged vote.

Oh the one man who has gotten all this started is spreading lots of lies, and the problem is people like you are believing them. The people of Bristol Bay are looking for jobs. Bristol Bay is the most ecnomically depressed area of the state. No jobs, this will put the people there to work.

Again what makes this mine any differant than all the other mines we have currently working, or being planned. We have a big gold mine going in just north of Fairbanks, no one is protesting that mine. It has the potential to be just as dangerous as Pebble. It is in a watershed that goes into the Tanana River, then into the Yukon River. A big Salmon producing stream.

Then there was Kennicot, a huge copper mine at McCarthy Alaska. After all those years of mining, and working the area, the Copper River still has some great Salmon runs. The Copper River is second only to Bristol Bay, in the production of Salmon. If Kennicot was worked decades ago, and no harm came to the Salmon, then what is stopping Pebble from being ran in an even better way with today's technology.

Guess some people heard the horrior stories from the late 1800s and early 1900s, and refuse to remove their heads from the sand to embrace new technology.

We mistakenly call them environmentalist, but they are nothing but preservasionist. They don't want any progress, they want to keep every thing as it is or was once upon a time. They are living in a fantasy world, and will never give up.

Swampman · « **Reply #73 on:** August 02, 2012, 04:12:11 PM »

As I mentioned I oppose mining on public land. The news says 80% of the locals oppose it. I've seen post by locals that say the vast majority oppose it. It completely destroys everything around it.

Victor3 · « **Reply #74 on:** August 02, 2012, 06:30:18 PM »

Quote from: Sourdough on August 02, 2012, 03:44:02 PM

Guess some people heard the horrior stories from the late 1800s and early 1900s, and refuse to remove their heads from the sand to embrace new technology.

Naw.... They just saw ol' Iron Eyes crying on TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7OHG7tHrNM

Swampman · « **Reply #75 on:** August 02, 2012, 11:43:22 PM »

The horror stories haven't changed. There is nothing more destructive to the environment than a mine and a gold mine is the most destructive because of the chemicals used. They are deadly.

SwampThing762 · « **Reply #76 on:** August 03, 2012, 05:55:59 AM »

Sourdough,

Excellent posts, sir. I commend you for stepping to the fore with the light of truth. Eco-wackos and anti-business lefties will do and say anything to destroy the American economy. They would prefer us to ride bicycles or walk everywhere, and have them solar thingies and wind widgets attached to the house. The eco-wackos and lefty fifth columnists could care less about the non-reliability of their preferred technology.

ST762

Sourdough · « **Reply #77 on:** August 03, 2012, 06:02:05 AM »

The news stories can and have been manipulated to say what ever the big Environmental groups want them to say. According to Trout Unlimited, no one wants this mine. News to the people that live in the Lake Clark area.

We have mines all over Alaska. All have to reclaimed after mining is complete. Here is just one example I got from today's News Miner.

FAIRBANKS — Pogo Mine, near Delta Junction, poured its 2 millionth ounce of gold Tuesday, according to mine officials.

“Milestones like this are only achieved when safety and environmental performance remain at the forefront of everyone’s minds,” General Manager Chris Kennedy said in a press release about the pour. “No ounce of gold is worth harming a person or the environment, and I am proud of our team for their performance.”

Pogo Mine was completed in 2006 and started commercial production April 2007.

The mine feeds approximately 2,500 tons of gold ore per day to the mill and produces between 350,000 and 380,000 ounces of gold per year.

More than 330 direct employees and 150 contractors work at the mine.

Operation is expected to run through 2019, but exploration is under way in an effort to extend the life of the mine.

Current reserves exceed 2.7 million ounces of gold, according to the press release.

Pogo Mine poured its

1 millionth ounce of gold in October 2009.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #78 on:** August 03, 2012, 06:16:41 AM »

Quote from: Swampman on August 02, 2012, 04:12:11 PM

As I mentioned I oppose mining on public land. The news says 80% of the locals oppose it. I've seen post by locals that say the vast majority oppose it. It completely destroys everything around it.

Then the government can sell the land to the mining company and all is fine. It would no longer be "public" land.

Sourdough · « **Reply #79 on:** August 03, 2012, 07:50:21 AM »

My trapping cabin is near the Usabelli Coal Mine. I hunt and go to one of the closed mining areas frequently. Usabelli pulled all the coal out of this valley, then did the reclamation work years ago. Today it looks just like all the surrounding area. Trees, willows, grasses, perfect Moose brouse. Moose and Grizzlies have returned to the area, as have the Marten, and other trapping favorites. The stream that had originally ran down the valley, had been diverted so they could mine there. Today that stream runs back in the valley, and has created a small lake. the state cropped Lake Trout in the lake and it is becoming a great place to fish as well as camp and hunt. Most people that hike into the area never know it was once a big ugly open pit mine.

This valley is surrounded by Caribou Country. Being state land we can do preditor control there and cut down on the number of Wolves, to help the Caribou herd numbers. If it was not state land the feds would be giving us a hard time about killing Wolves, and refusing to let us shoot them from the air.

Swampman · « **Reply #80 on:** August 03, 2012, 01:48:31 PM »

Quote from: Cabin4 on August 03, 2012, 06:16:41 AM

Quote from: Swampman on August 02, 2012, 04:12:11 PM
As I mentioned I oppose mining on public land. The news says 80% of the locals oppose it. I've seen post by locals that say the vast majority oppose it. It completely destroys everything around it.

Then the government can sell the land to the mining company and all is fine. It would no longer be "public" land.

It won't matter because it won't be worth anything......when the miners get through.

Victor3 · « **Reply #81 on:** August 03, 2012, 05:26:17 PM »

I'm starting to get it now...

This is just another example of things that you "know" via clairvoyance that nobody else does.

williamlayton · « **Reply #82 on:** August 04, 2012, 04:22:21 AM »

The copper/gold/mineral mine in New Mexico has been using these methods for 50 years with no ill effect that I have ever read. It is the largest open pit mine in the world.
Blessings

briarpatch · « **Reply #83 on:** August 04, 2012, 04:32:52 AM »

Swampman I am with you at keeping the world a pristine place, a place untouched by man, a Garden of Eden if you will. That did not last and neither will this because we live by our hands and from what we can get from our resourses. I'm not advacating take without giving but being as conscious as we can with what we have and allow those resourses be used and yes there are bastards that in the end benefit at the expense of all including the earth.

Swampman · « **Reply #84 on:** August 04, 2012, 05:17:23 AM »

Quote from: williamlayton on August 04, 2012, 04:22:21 AM

The copper/gold/mineral mine in New Mexico has been using these methods for 50 years with no ill effect that I have ever read. It is the largest open pit mine in the world.
Blessings

There's nothing to harm there. New Mexico is an open pit,

Shu · « **Reply #85 on:** August 04, 2012, 05:24:13 AM »

I have one question- How is it that Swampman in Florida knows so much more about Alaska mining than Sourdough who lives in Alaska in close proximity to the mines and area in question?

Anyone care to answer that.

snapdragon · « **Reply #86 on:** August 05, 2012, 08:06:44 AM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on July 24, 2012, 03:29:42 PM

Only the stupid folks that are ignorant of the mining laws wouldn't know that they now have to reclaim the land after mining. Tree huggers believe what they want to believe, even though the truth is out there in federal regulations.

Have things recently changed about what being reclaimed means? It formerly meant that the land at the site would be returned to its previous use. If that meant grow trees, it would be considered to be reclaimed if a few trees could be grown. If it meant growing native grass, it would be considered to be reclaimed if grass could be grown on the site. Much, very much, depends on what the government controllers do with the foreign company, Canadian if I remember correctly, while the mine is active and after it is closed. I have not been impressed with the private companies, the many government agencies, the tree huggers, the lawyers on either side, and so forth when it comes to such things. Perhaps it is better these days in Alaska, but the past record of such activities is quite disturbing.

Done right and perfectly by all involved, the process of mining the area on such a larges scale may not be as destructive as other mines have been in the past. I have seen very little that gives me comfort that such would be the case.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #87 on:** August 05, 2012, 08:41:12 AM »

Snap feelings are the basis of the liberal green agenda. Facts are what adults talk about.

Swampman · « **Reply #88 on:** August 05, 2012, 08:49:23 AM »

Quote from: Shu on August 04, 2012, 05:24:13 AM

I have one question- How is it that Swampman in Florida knows so much more about Alaska mining than Sourdough who lives in Alaska in close proximity to the mines and area in question?

Anyone care to answer that.

He's biased and I'm not. I'm a state certified Safety & Environmental Manager. I hate the EPA and I hate mining, esp. the type that processes materials on site. Those who live near where the mine is under consideration don't want it. Outdoorsmen who think the total destruction of an ecosystem is a good thing make me wonder. In the end greed will win and our heritage will be destroyed.

snapdragon · « **Reply #89 on:** August 05, 2012, 09:26:59 AM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on August 05, 2012, 08:41:12 AM

Snap feelings are the basis of the liberal green agenda. Facts are what adults talk about.

I am far from green but have seen the results of such activities for over 60 years. This thing should be approached with great caution.

One of the main problems with the greenies is that they are in-you-face crazy and quickly polarize people into armed camps of resistance. Facts, about which adults should, indeed, talk, are quickly lost in the shouting and posturing. Labels are placed on people and their positions (I just used the term greenie) to solidify this polarization. The end result is that the best thing is often not done.

I feel that an adult conversation about the benefits and dangers of such an operation should be conducted so that the final decision is not just a knee jerk reaction. Facts about present technology, present laws, past performance of the government agencies and of the mining company, the nature of the proposed site, the possible damage done by the operation, and a host of other things should be part of that conversation.