Pebble Mine Information

[Phil Lilley]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_Mine

Proposal

The exact nature and scope of proposed mining activities at Pebble are yet to be finalized. Planning and exploration is currently focused on a single geologic deposit which is referred to as two contiguous deposits, Pebble West and Pebble East. There are other significant mineral occurrences and deposits in the project area, but they are little-explored, to date. Northern Dynasty expects in 2009 to make a decision on whether to apply for permits to build a mine at Pebble, and to make a final construction decision in 2011.[1][2]

Only a huge mine, benefiting from economies of scale, is economically possible at Pebble due to the low-grade character of the ore. Feasibility studies (detailed mine construction and operation plans) and applications for permits by Pebble Mines Corp. are being deferred until the Pebble East deposit is fully delineated.[3]

Pebble West would probably be mined from an open pit. The geology and mining characteristics of Pebble West are well understood. The pit would be up to two miles (3 km) wide and several thousand feet deep and may generate up to 2.5 billion tons of waste material[4]. Two artificial lakes would be created in order to store the discharge chemicals and waste. The largest of the dams enclosing these lakes would 740 feet (230 m) tall and 4.3 miles (6.9 km) long.

Pebble East would most likely be mined by underground methods.

Other design possibilities being considered include: construction of a port on Iniskin Bay on Cook Inlet; a private one-lane freight road roughly 104 miles (167 km) long built along the north side of Lake Iliamna between the mine and the new port; trucks hauling ore concentrate on that road to the port or a pipeline along the road which would carry a slurry of metal concentrate from the minesite to the portsite. The slurry would be dewatered at the portsite before being shipped to a smelter, with the pipeline returning the water to the minesite.[5] [6]Power to operate the mine would possibly come from a submarine cable stretching across Cook Inlet[7].

Northern Dynasty estimates that Pebble West contains over $100 billion worth of metals at 2006 prices[8]. If Pebble East is included the estimate increases to over $300 billion dollars.[4]

[edit] Location and land status

The Pebble Prospect is located 200 miles southwest of Anchorage, north of Lake Iliamna, near the villages of Nondalton and Iliamna, in a remote and roadless area. It sits at the headwaters of Upper Talarik Creek and the Koktuli River. Upper Talarik Creek flows into Lake Iliamna, and then into Bristol Bay through the Kvichak River. The Koktuli River flows into the Mulchatna River, which joins the Nushagak River, and then flows into Bristol Bay.

The Pebble mineral deposits are on land owned by the state of Alaska. Pebble Mines Corp. holds mineral rights on 153 square miles of state mining claims, an area which includes the Pebble deposits, as well as other, less explored, mineral deposits. [9].

The Pebble West/East deposits are centered on 59.8971N, 155.2952W (59o 53' 50"N 155o 17' 43"W).

[edit] Discovery and exploration history

Cominco Alaska Exploration (CAE) began investigations in the area in 1986. Early work focused on color anomalies visible from aircraft. Discovery of the Pebble West (originally named Pebble Beach) deposit occurred during the first drilling campaign in 1988. CAE continued drilling and other work through 1992, resulting in a calculated resource of 3 million tonnes of copper metal and 11 million ounces of gold contained in 1000 million tonnes of ore. After 1992 little further work was done on the project for nearly a decade.[10]

In 2001 Northern Dynasty Minerals optioned the property from Teck Cominco (the successor company to the parent company of CAE) and began in 2002 an extensive exploration program that is still in progress. By 2004 Northern Dynasty had expanded the known resources at Pebble West to include 4100 million tonnes of ore. In 2004 engineering, environmental, and socio-economic studies aimed at designing a mine commenced. In 2005 Northern Dynasty discovered the Pebble East deposit. Also that year, Northern Dynasty acquired 100% ownership of the Pebble mining claims.[3] [11]

By the end of 2007, Northern Dynasty expects to have invested about $225 million in the project, with about $85 million of that in environmental and socio-economic studies.[12]

In 2007, Northern Dynasty anticipated completing a prefeasability study in late 2008, a feasability study in 2011, and commencing production in 2015.[13]

In early 2008, exploration of the Pebble East deposit continues, with $140 million budgeted for project expenditures in 2008[14]. The limits of the deposit have not yet been found.

[edit] Current company ownership and management

In July of 2007 Northern Dynasty Minerals announced a partnership with London based Anglo American in the Pebble Mine project. The new Pebble Limited Partnership is 50% owned by a wholly-owned U.S.-based subsidiary of Anglo American and 50% owned by The Northern Dynasty Partnership, which is a wholly-owned Canadian-based subsidiary of Northern Dynasty Minerals Limited.[15] The partnership agreement obligates Anglo American to spend $1.425 billion towards study, permitting, and construction of the project in order to retain it's 50% interest.[16] The partnership is managed by the Pebble Mines Corporation, a 50% Northern Dynasty:50% Anglo American owned corporation based in Alaska. Important stockholders in Northern Dynasty Minerals Limited include Kennecott (19.8%) which is a wholly-owned affiliate of Rio Tinto, management (13%), and Mitsubishi (9.1%). One non-executive member of the Northern Dynasty board is a Rio Tinto representative. The corporate officers and executive board members of Northern Dynasty Minerals Limited are all, also, executive board members and corporate officers of Hunter Dickerson Corporation. Northern Dynasty is one of ten public mining companies driven by Hunter Dickerson, a Vancouver-based Canadian corporation.[17]

[edit] Geology

Pebble Copper is a calc-alkali porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum deposit hosted in deformed sedimentary rocks of the Jurassic to Cretaceous age Kahiltna flysch terrane intruded by diorite and porphyritic granodiorite to tonalite of Upper Cretaceous age. Porphyry phases occur as dykes, sills, and irregular bodies.[18]

Metallic minerals identified at Pebble Copper include pyrite, chalcopyrite, and molybdenite, along with minor bornite, covellite, chalcocite, digenite, and magnetite.

The western part of the deposit (Pebble West) is exposed at the surface; thin gossans are developed and oxidation reaches 100 feet in depth. The eastern part of the deposit (Pebble East) is eroded and has been covered by a thickening-to-the-east wedge of post-mineralization-age Tertiary sedimentary and volcano-sedimentary rocks.[19]

The Lake Clark fault probably lies within twenty miles of the Pebble deposits, and possibly much closer; it is a major right-lateral strike-slip crustal feature that is considered to be a westward continuation of the Castle Mt. fault. No ground mapping in the Pebble area has identified the trace of the Lake Clark fault.[20][21]. Recent studies indicate that a magnitude 7.1 quake can be expected to occur on the Castle Mt. fault on a 700-year cycle.[22] The Lake Clark fault is sub-parallel to and considered to be similar to the Denali fault, which lies several hundred miles to the north. A magnitude 7.9 quake struck the Denali fault in 2002. The subduction zone of the Aleutian Trench lies approximately 125 miles south of Pebble. This zone was the source of the 1964 Good Friday earthquake of magnitude 9.2.[23]

[edit] Reserves and resources

Latest estimates (February 2008) indicate that Pebble West contains (at a copper-equivalent cut-off of 0.30%): Measured and Indicated resources of; 18.8 billion pounds of copper, 31.3 million ounces of gold, and 265 million pounds of molybdenum, contained within 3026 million tonnes of ore and Inferred resources of 5.9 billion pounds of copper, 9.1 million ounces of gold, and 993 million pounds of molybdenum, contained within 1130 million tonnes of ore.[3]

Pebble East is estimated to contain (at a copper-equivalent cut-off of 0.6%): Inferred resources of 49 billion pounds of copper, 45 million ounces of gold, and 2.8 billion pounds of molybdenum, contained within 3860 million tonnes of ore.[2]

By dollar value, slightly more than half of the value of Pebble is from copper, with the remainder split roughly equally between gold and molybdenum.

Pebble is now estimated to be the second-largest ore deposit of its type in the world, slightly smaller than Indonesia's Grasberg Mine.[12]

[edit] Permitting

Northern Dynasty has applied for water rights permits to Upper Talarik Creek and the Koktuli River for use in mining operations.[7]

[edit] Salmon resources in the area

Bristol Bay is home to some of the largest runs of salmon in the world (in the tens of millions), and the world's largest sockeye salmon fishery.[24] It's also a popular sport fishing area, with lodges catering to fishermen fishing for salmon and trophy-size trout. Subsistence fishing is important to the region's native communities.

[edit] Controversy

The controversy over the Pebble Mine centers largely on its potential impact on fish and fisheries. In general, mining opponents claim that the mine poses a significant and unacceptable risk to downstream fish stocks, while mining proponents claim that the mine can be developed without significantly harming the fish.

Opposition to the proposal is being led by organizations including; the Renewable Resources Coalition (formed in 2005 to oppose the Pebble project)[25], local native groups (such as the Bristol Bay Native Association[26] and Nunumta Aulukestai[27]), commercial and sport fishing organizations (such as the Alaska Independent Fishermen's Marketing Association[28] and the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association[29]), and environmental groups (such as American Rivers[30] and Trout Unlimited).[31] Senator Ted Stevens, a strong proponent of other resource extraction projects, has expressed his opposition to the Pebble proposal[32].

The issue has attracted national attention, with articles in the New York Times and other influential national publications, and is prominent on the agendas of environmental and sport-fishing organizations. Pebble Mine project is a hot topic inside Alaska, with articles or letters to the editor in the Anchorage Daily News almost daily. Opinion is divided. According to a poll commissioned by the Renewable Resources Coalition, 53% of Alaskans oppose the project, with 28% in favor, and 19% undecided[33]. According to a competing poll commissioned by Northern Dynasty Mines, 31% oppose the project, 45% support it, and 24% are undecided[34]. According to the only poll targeting them, Bristol Bay residents are strongly opposed to the mine, with 71% opposed, 20% in favor, and 9% undecided[35].

[edit] Arguments against the proposal

[edit] Environmental

* The fish in the watershed, and the wildlife that depend on them, are too important to risk in exchange for the economic benefits of the mine.

* Accidental discharge of process chemicals and byproducts, heavy metals, and acid mine drainage to the environment are realistic concerns in mine design and operation. Some are dangerous to fish and other wildlife.

* Mining has a poor environmental track record. For example, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, mining has contaminated portions of the headwaters of over 40 percent of watersheds in the western continental U.S., and reclamation of 500,000 abandoned mines in 32 states could cost tens of billions of dollars.[36]

* A recent study of 25 modern large hard rock metal mines compared water quality outcomes with EIS predictions from the permitting stage. 76 percent (19 mines) of the 25 mines exceeded water quality standards in releases to either surface or groundwater. In this study "exceeded water quality standard" does not necessarily mean that the mines failed to abide by their permits. When the 15 mines with high acid-drainage, high contaminant leaching potential, and proximity to ground water are considered separately, this number is 93% (14 mines).[37][38]

* Earthquake hazards in the area are poorly known, and preliminary plans by the mining company do not prepare adequately for the potential risk.[39]

[edit] Economic

* Northern Dynasties is Canadian based corporation.[40]

* The mine would not provide significant tax revenue to the state. Due to Alaska tax structure, oil and gas drilling returns over 20% of resource value to the state and municipalities, fishing returns 1% to 5%, and mining returns approximately 1.5%[41][42]

[edit] Arguments for the proposal

[edit] Economic

* The mine, and supporting activities, would provide significant tax revenue to the state. The State of Alaska predicts that direct mining tax revenue, even without Pebble, will be one of the most important sources of non-oil tax revenue (exceeding revenue from fishing).[41]

* The mine will create well-paying jobs in an increasingly poverty-stricken region [43] — roughly 2000 jobs for construction, dropping to 1000 permanent jobs during the 30 to 60 year expected life span of the mine.[44]

* Development of the mine would be a boost to the economy of Alaska.[citation needed]

* The mine would provide a domestic resource of raw materials lowering the United States reliance on foreign sources.[45]

[edit] Environmental

* Protection of the environment and fisheries will be ensured by the stringent environmental review and permitting process, including an EIS, that is required before development is allowed.

* Much of the poor environmental track record of mining is from a time before current technologies and regulations.

* Northern Dynasty has a "no net loss" policy for fisheries[46].

[edit] Ongoing political actions affecting the proposal

[edit] Bill to create Jay Hammond State Game Refuge

A proposal to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to create a fish refuge in the Koktuli and Talarik watersheds has been strongly supported by mine opponents and strongly opposed by Northern Dynasty. The Board of Fisheries voted to create a panel to study the proposal (which could decide to recommend a refuge to the legislature), and both sides claimed this as a victory.[47] In March of 2007 the Board voted to take no action on the proposal due to pending legislation.[48]

In January of 2007 Senate Bill 67, introduced by Senator Gary Stevens of Kodiak, proposed the establishment of a State Fish and Game Refuge covering about 7-million acres of state land in the Kvichak and Nushagak drainages (with the refuge to be named after former Alaska Governor Jay Hammond). No uses incompatible with: fish and wildlife populations, commercial or subsistence food gathering, or recreation would be allowed in the refuge. The bill would also close the refuge to the staking of new mining claims. Most significantly, the bill would make illegal the storage or disposal of any quantity of, "industrial waste," thereby making it impossible to develop any industry, including mines, within the refuge. The bill was referred to the resource committee.[49]

[edit] Bill for Protection of Salmon Spawning Water

In February of 2007, HS 134 was introduced in the Alaska State House by Representatives Edgmon, Ramras, Dahlstrom, Gara, and Kerttula entitled: "An Act relating to conservation and protection of wild salmon production in drainages affecting the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve; and providing for an effective date."[50] By making it law that, "a person may not alter, destroy, displace, relocate, channel, dam, convert to dry land, or otherwise adversely affect any portion of the anadromous fish waters of the Bristol Bay watershed in connection with a sulfide mining operation," the bill would make it impossible for Pebble Mine to continue its development. The bill is in committee as of June 2008.[51][52]

[edit] Alaska Clean Water Initiative

In Alaska, an initiative is, "the procedure by which the people instead of the legislature introduce and enact a law. A specified number of voters propose the law they wish to be placed on a ballot to have it voted up or down by their fellow Alaskans. By law, an initiative can not be narrowly targeted, it must have statewide effect.[Ref. AS 15.45.010-245]."[53]

Several versions of the clean water initiative were submitted to state agencies and circulated as petitions for signatures. One version remains in play: Clean Water 3, labeled by state agencies as 07wtr3, is currently scheduled to be on the August 2008 Alaska statewide ballot as Ballot Measure 4.

Ballot Measure 4 (the Act), if passed into law, will prohibit the State of Alaska from issuing permits to any metallic mining operation with a footprint larger than 640 acres that; " releases...a toxic pollutant in a measurable amount that will effect [sic] human health or welfare or any stage of the life cycle of salmon, into, any...water...," and, "stores...overburden, waste rock, or tailings in a way that could result in the release...of compounds that will effect [sic], directly or indirectly, surface or subsurface waters or tributaries thereto used for human consumption, salmon spawning, rearing, migration, or propagation..."

The Act will not apply to, " operations that have received all required...permits, authorizations, licenses and approvals on or before the effective date of this Act, or to future operations of existing facilities at those sites."

An opinion on the Act issued by the State of Alaska Division of Legal and Research Services states that the, "Ambiguity, interpretation, and drafting issues...present...interpretive issues. Existing operations might not be able to expand or build new facilities without becoming subject to the initiative's provisions." The illogical misuse of the word, "effect," and the lack of definition of the terms, "facility," and "site," in the Act are presented as examples.[54] On the other hand, an Alaskan Superior Court judge and the Alaska Department of Law have interpreted the Act to mean that existing water standards for large scale mining may not dramatically change.[55]

All mining operations must regularly re-apply for mining permits. Opponents of the Act fear that the broad and ambiguous language in the Act will be used as a legal tool against all mining in Alaska.[56] Supporters of the Act accuse mining interests of, "crying that the sky is falling."[57]

The Superior Court notes that the Act is, "ambiguous and open to disparate interpretations." If the Act becomes law, it's meaning and effects will probably be determined by future court rulings. In this case, to determine the proper meaning of the ambiguous Act, the courts will try to determine the intents of, and state of mind of the enacters of the law, i.e., the voters of the State of Alaska. The neutral ballot summary ( a one-paragraph summary printed on the ballot) may be a critically important factor the courts would consider in interpreting the meaning of Ballot Measure 4 as law.[54]

Supporters of the initiative include some residents of the project area, as well as business interests that benefit from fishing lodges in the area. Opponents of the initiative include some residents of the project area, the Alaska mining community, and the Alaska Federation of Natives.[58]

The entire text of Ballot Measure 4 can be found at http://www.elections.state.ak.us/petitions/07wtr3.pdf.

History of the Initiative:

In April of 2006 the Clean Water Initiative (Clean Water 1) was submitted to the State of Alaska for approval to begin collecting signatures. The initiative proposed to severely limit the byproducts of mining operations that can be released into streams and rivers and prohibits even the use of any amount of any "toxic agent that may be harmful". It applies to any mining operations larger then 640 acres (2.6 km2), although it has no effect on operations conducted under currently issued mining permits[59]. In June of 2006 Alaska Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell denied the application on grounds that it would act as an illegal appropriation of state lands. By the Alaska State Constitution, only a vote of the Alaska Legislature can appropriate state lands. [60]. Initiative backers appealed to the Alaska Superior Court, which in October of 2007 ruled that the initiative did not violate the Alaska constitution and approved it to begin collection of signatures[61]. The State of Alaska appealed the Superior Court decision to the Alaska State Supreme Court.

Backers of the Alaska Clean Water Initiative were pleased with the timing of the Superior Court ruling because it enabled them to petition for signatures at the 2007 Alaska Federation of Natives conference. They hoped that Native Corporations from around Alaska would work together to approve the initiative and oppose Pebble Mine. However, at the conference, delegates from around the state overwhelming voted to oppose the initiative on the basis of it hurting not only the Pebble Mine but any other mining operation in the State[62]. They followed up this symbolic act with a lawsuit in November of 2007 seeking to stop the certification of the initiative[63].

In 2007 Anti-Pebble activists circulated petitions for two versions of an, "Alaska Clean Water Initiative," applying to any mining operations larger then 640 acres (2.6 km2); with the first version being more restrictive than the second. Both versions collected sufficient signatures of registered Alaska voters and were certified by Alaska state officials for placement on the statewide August 2008 election ballot.

The stricter of the two versions contained language that arguably would effectively make it impossible to permit any new large mine in Alaska, or to issue new permits to allow existing large mines to continue operations, effectively placing a ban on all mining in Alaska. The less-strict version would be little different from existing regulations, but with ambiguous language arguably open to interpretations that would severely restrict or eliminate mining in Alaska[64].

Proponents of Pebble challenged the constitutionality of both versions; the more-restrictive "Clean Water 1", and the less-restrictive measure, now known as Ballot Measure 4. During the course of months-long legal and regulatory battles over the two initiatives the anti-Pebble activists that initially created and supported both initiatives asked that the first initiative be struck from the ballot, stating that their cause would be best served by concentrating on a single initiative, i.e., Ballot Measure 4.

On June 9, 2008, the Alaska Supreme Court dismissed a pending case concerning Clean Water 1; an action that effectively removes Clean Water 1 from the August ballot.[65] Legal contests before the Alaska Supreme Court continue concerning Ballot Measure 4 (the less-restrictive version of the two initiatives).

Text of the two versions of the initiative can be found at http://www.elections.state.ak.us/petitions/07watr.pdf and http://www.elections.state.ak.us/petitions/07wtr3.pdf.

[edit] Legal arguments concerning the proposed bills and ballot measures

Advocates of Pebble argue that the bills and measures discussed above would constitute an illegal taking of property rights. The rights under discussion are the mineral rights granted by the State of Alaska to holders of mining claims on state land. Opponents of Pebble disagree.[66]

[edit] External links

[edit] Government links

* Alaska Division of Mining, Land & Water: Pebble Project

[edit] Pebble Opposition

* Photos and Information

* Renewable Resources Coalition

* Bristol Bay Residents Who Oppose the Mine

[edit] Pebble proponents

* Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown

* Northern Dynasty Minerals

* The Truth About Pebble

* The Pebble Partnership

[edit] News

* Alaska Report (27 Dec. 2007): Pebble Mine debated in Alaska bush

* Anchorage Daily News (13 Oct. 2007): Pebble mine prospect keeps getting richer

* Anchorage Daily News : "The Pebble Blog"

[Guest kevinkirk]

Too bad but I bet the money will drive this and plenty of politician with their hands in the till

[jmoore]

Interesting.

Im sure the technology exists or can be developed to allow 'zero impact' mining. The fact is, the use or development of that type of technology will shrink the profit margins on a 'limited resource', that there will not be enough grease left over for all the palms sticking out.

It is truly a scary situation. I want my son (now almost 4) to be able to experience that area. I'm too confident that greed will destroy it. It is just a matter of how long it will take.

Its is easier, and more profitable to buy politicians than to develop methods and technology to do it right.

Jim

[TroutBum4wt]

Thanks for posting the topic and information.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Thanks for posting. Interesting indeed.

Not to make it political but did you notice the time lines? It appeared this got started in the '80's during B-41 admin. Then, starting in 92, and Clinton's 8 year admin it all but ceased only to begin a new, and more intense in 2002 during B-43.

Maybe there is nothing to it but, it just looks funny to me.

[Guest kevinkirk]

I think the real question here is what are YOU willing to give up to prevent this from happening. We all point fingers at ppl who are mininrcg or doing other activities that can and do harm the environment but we are all guilty with our consumer lifestyle. We want a Walmart and Home Depot and a Target close and marinas, and gas for boats and electicity to run this computer and minerals to construct it and our cars and boats, but we want it without cost to our environment.

Our schools use HUGE amounts of resources as well as our local govts and it goes right down to YOU, also. Our footprint on this earth has never been larger due to our increased lifestyle demands. We want it and we want it all. Watching television for instance and all that takes to make it happen. resources gobbled up in record numbers. Just consider what it takes to put on a college or professional sports team show. How many ppl travel, buses, planes, food, electricity, natural gas, advertising and on and on.

We want all of that but dont want it in our backyard. There is a man here who is a college prof and he was ranting in the newspaper about how we took this land from the Indians and that is not right and needs to be righted. So I suggested that HE give up his house and land as he is sittingon land that once was owned or at least hunted on by those same ppls. His response was "well I mean somewhere else, where there are big tracts of land", like that land isnot owned by someone just likehim.

So i do understand the concernhere. A mine in colorado absolutely destroyed a whole mountaintop and the tailwater overflowed and acidized 70 miles of pristine river, never to be fishable again. I used to go there every summer and fish. So i understand. HOWEVER, what am I willing to give up personally to cut down on the mining and timbering and other base industries. I sure like my truck, want to buy a new aluminum boat and can hear the A/C running and I like that too.

Sorry, we just need to consider OUR impact on the world too. Running a two stroke motor in a lake might not seem like a big deal but it adds to the pollution. Does YOUR motor matter? Eventually, yes. But we dont change...

Having said all that....I am chief sinner among you all, so dont go off on me. I know I am guilty and would like to change. Maybe as i get older I see that one day I will leave this world and will I have left it a better place or will I have simply added to the problems.

WOW..iam not usually so thotful. Dog got me up WAY too early this morning for his walk.

[Chief Grey Bear]

I can buy everything you are selling there Kevin. You hit that one in the center. Good shot!

[Guest kevinkirk]

I dont want to be a pain in the butt, but to understand this subject, you have to understand economics. The ONLY true producers of income are Mining, Timber and Agriculture. All else in society comes from those three things. BECAUSE, they are the only base things that get something from nothing. The only industries where man gets something that produces real income. All other jobs and things originate in those industries. So as much as we hate their methods, we appreciate their impact even if we dont know it. Without it, none of us would have jobs.

[Phil Lilley]

Good points.

The people who live up there are almost militant about this. I can't blame them. But bottom line, the world needs what's in the ground up there and hopefully, IF there's a safe way to extract these minerals, they will do it. It will costs more but in the long run they will benefit.

But with the earthquakes in this region, I'm not sure anything is safe.

[Guest kevinkirk]

I read the history of Table Rock Dam and the same things were said about it. Destroyed a way of life, a wonderful river, close to New Madris Fault, towns under water, farm land destroyed, pastures flooded, all for the sake of Electricty .....for someone else way off somewhere..hahhaha

Depends on whose OX is being gored I guess.

Here they wont let wind generators be installed in the county as it ruins the view. OF WHAT I dont know. but....

ALso there are 6 prairie chickens out there....and...well..would rather see soldiers die defending oil fields that lose a few birds.>?????what the heck..