Kensington has been delayed because they changed their mining plan in the middle of the permitting process, not because of pollution issues. Change the plan, permitting has to address that.
Dand,
The DNR officials walked off the job because of the way Murkowski wanted to deal with the O&G industry. Not because he rolled back any protections. He can't do that.
From today's paper.
Supporters of Pebble call jobs top priority
MINE: Outsiders, wealthy shouldn't have oversight, residents tell legislators.
By PAULA DOBBYN
Anchorage Daily News
Published: February 14, 2006
Last Modified: February 14, 2006 at 02:41 AM
Proponents of the giant Pebble gold and copper prospect near Iliamna got a boost from supporters who dominated the testimony Monday before a state House committee.
The House Resources Committee is considering a bipartisan resolution, introduced this month by Rep. Mike Hawker, R-Anchorage, calling for more oversight, public involvement and planning for the Pebble area. Most people who appeared before the panel Friday supported the resolution, saying the Bristol Bay watershed is too valuable for fishing, hunting and recreation to risk placing a huge, open-pit mine there without at least a management plan in place.
But on Monday, the testimony shifted dramatically. Several residents of the Bristol Bay region, including a mayor and some Native village corporation leaders, spoke in favor of the mine proposal and against the Hawker resolution.
"This resolution is nothing more than pandering to special interests, to the rich and famous and powerful outside interests that do not have a stake in the economic future and potential of the Pebble deposit," said Ralph Angasan of King Salmon.
Angasan is president of the Alaska Peninsula Corp., a Native corporation that represents several villages close to Pebble. He called Hawker's resolution a threat "to the survival of the Bristol Bay region." The people pushing it have engaged in exploitation, Angasan said.
"They have created scarcities, taken trophies and left nothing," he said.
Lisa Reimer, a director of Iliamna Natives Ltd., said residents who support the Pebble project are being outgunned.
"We don't have a billionaire backing us up," Reimer said.
She was referring to Anchorage money manager Bob Gillam, who is helping finance the Renewable Resources Coalition, a group organized about six months ago to try to derail the Pebble proposal. Gillam testified Friday in support of Hawker's resolution.
Gillam is a wealthy Anchorage sportsman who is president of McKinley Capital Management. He owns property near Lake Clark National Park, not far from the Pebble deposit. Gillam, through his company's spokesman, declined to comment Monday.
State Labor Commissioner Greg O'Claray said a management plan for the Pebble area is not necessary because the state's large-mine permitting process contains enough safeguards will that address the environmental, socioeconomic and other concerns that arise.
But Scott Brennan, head of the Anchorage-based nonprofit group Alaskans for Responsible Mining, called Hawker's resolution "sound public policy" that emphasizes public involvement and the Legislature's oversight role when it comes to huge projects like Pebble.
The company exploring Pebble, Northern Dynasty Minerals, has billed the prospect as potentially North America's largest gold mine and second largest copper mine. The company hasn't decided yet to develop Pebble. Northern Dynasty does not anticipate filing for permits until late 2007 and doesn't expect production until 2011 at the earliest.
Some committee members have expressed concerns that a management plan for Pebble might delay the massive project. But Department of Natural Resources officials said Monday that that is unlikely. The management plan, estimated to cost $400,000, would be developed concurrently with the federal and state permitting process, said Dick Mylius, a top land manager with the Department of Natural Resources.
"Our intention would be to wrap them up at the same time," he said.
DNR officials also clarified some differences between a management plan and an environmental impact statement or other mine permitting steps. A management plan looks at a broader range of nontechnical matters and provides detailed guidance on how a tract of land should be used. The large-mine permitting process examines often highly technical and scientific information on a specific development.
For example, during permitting, an environmental impact statement might present alternatives on the types of liners a mine tailings pond should have, while a management plan might recommend where such a treatment site might be located or whether one should be built at all, said DNR deputy commissioner Ed Fogels.
The mayor of the Lake and Peninsula Borough, which encompasses Pebble, told the committee he's not sure whether mining is the answer to his region's economic troubles. But something has to change because the Bristol Bay region has suffered with the downturn of the commercial fishing industry, and a tremendous out-migration of residents is taking place, said Mayor Glen Alsworth.
"Our villages are going to go to work or die," Alsworth said.
The Resources Committee has held the resolution until after the Lake and Peninsula Borough Assembly meets this month in Iliamna and takes a position on Hawker's measure. The Assembly in 2004 passed a resolution supporting the Pebble project.
