Fingers crossed, looks like the current administration just killed it for good. Can’t link the Washington Post article but should be available soon on other sites without a paywall.
Final Blow to Pebble Mine?
- Thread starter Robert Engleheart
- Start date
No. There's too much gold there. It ain't over. The only time it's over is when the opponents quit.
I'm not sure without Legislative action the mine can be stopped. The powers of the Administration are limited. The Executive Branch can cause havoc and keep it in legal limbo (for years) but prevention can only come from a law.
My edit: I have notified all of our WA Feds and said without drastic improvements to the CWA Pebble Mines should be stopped....crickets has been the response.
Last edited:
Whitewater
Smolt
Dams, mines, etc are zombie like. Those ideas never die, just go dormant until the next time.
Example: "trial balloons" are being floated to test public reaction to adding more Colorado R. dams. The answer is use less. Case in point; in Phoenix and Tucson subdivisions are still being approved. Meanwhile the water table drops.
Wait till Colorado river users find out that Wyoming doesn't take all the water it's entitled to.
Example: "trial balloons" are being floated to test public reaction to adding more Colorado R. dams. The answer is use less. Case in point; in Phoenix and Tucson subdivisions are still being approved. Meanwhile the water table drops.
Wait till Colorado river users find out that Wyoming doesn't take all the water it's entitled to.
Because politicians of nearly every stripe are in favor of development, with the highest quality lip service to conservation. This is because developers (where the money is) contribute far more campaign dollars than do conservationists. Follow the money.
If that asshole Tom Collier (D) is any good at environmental management, regardless of whether he worked for Al Gore or not, he knows that not one single large scale open pit mine has yet been developed without contaminating its surrounding environment. Not a fvckin' one. And if John Stossel was any good as an investigative reporter, instead of being a development hack reporter, he would have asked Collier during the interview to name just a few such mines that haven't contaminated their surrounding environments. Or even just one example. Yet no one has done so that I know of. I haven't been able to find an example, but you'd think these fvcking mining experts would know of them, if any exist.
As for there being "just sand" behind the tailings retaining dam, for fvcks sake, he knows good and well that all such dams containing "just sand" contain tons of heavy metals that are toxic to aquatic life like salmon and trout. What a fvcking con artist, trying like others to use the antiquated Mining Act of 1872 to obtain thousands of acres of federal public land for $0.25 per acre, basically stealing public land to generate private profit. And the Natural Resource Defense Council is somehow "wrong" for busting butt to try and stop it? "Give me a break, Stossel!" ("Give me a break" is what Stossel always used to say at the end of his little Opinion pieces on the TV news show 20:20.)
We think in years, they think in decades.
My .02...
I agree with longput, slamo, and others...
I have been active in the actions against permitting the mine by sending letters to Senators and Congressman/women, signing petetions and whatever else possible for 10 years. At one point I was sending letters twice a month to a mailing list.
If a federal law to protect that land from mining is not passed by the US Congress, such as making that area a wildland preserve or a National Park etc. there is no doubt that some greedy POS will be ready to place that area's fish, wildlife and drainage at risk.
Money talks and apparently there is gross amounts of it just waiting for someone to seize the opportunity to dig it up, thereby creating an ecological disaster waiting to happen.
When those opposed to the mine blink an eye, take a breath or a new administration takes over, backroom deals, payoffs, kickbacks and donations make the outcome of all of this very likely to be permitting the mine.
I agree with longput, slamo, and others...
I have been active in the actions against permitting the mine by sending letters to Senators and Congressman/women, signing petetions and whatever else possible for 10 years. At one point I was sending letters twice a month to a mailing list.
If a federal law to protect that land from mining is not passed by the US Congress, such as making that area a wildland preserve or a National Park etc. there is no doubt that some greedy POS will be ready to place that area's fish, wildlife and drainage at risk.
Money talks and apparently there is gross amounts of it just waiting for someone to seize the opportunity to dig it up, thereby creating an ecological disaster waiting to happen.
When those opposed to the mine blink an eye, take a breath or a new administration takes over, backroom deals, payoffs, kickbacks and donations make the outcome of all of this very likely to be permitting the mine.
Every resource is for sale, and has a dollar value attached to it.
For some, that is the only measure of worth.
In time there will be a mine in that area, without a law prohibiting development there.
And that's good only until the law gets changed...
For some, that is the only measure of worth.
In time there will be a mine in that area, without a law prohibiting development there.
And that's good only until the law gets changed...
Divad
Whitefish
The beef is two fold one that the EPA closed cases before proceeding to proper protocol and two that inevitably we will need to mine copper. You can bash every new copper mine you want right now but it’ll hurt come soon, for your kids too.
It’s 12-14 yrs until we exacerbate supply as is, then given 4.50+ national average and an explanation of “go buy electric cars” will only shorten that horizon.
Like it or love it copper will inevitably be mined somewhere in the states. Protocol needs to be followed in order for the right operations to start.
@Salmo_g ill agree he downplays the sand shlt and a lot more, but he’s also not the governing body and thank goodness mining is as old as time, and politicians understand it or have the ability to (unlike any debate involving the internet).
Zak
Legend
Yeah but maybe we shouldn't mine copper in the middle of the spawning grounds of the largest salmon run on earth (I think?). There's way more economic benefit attached to that fishery than would be realized from the mine. That mine is just a bad idea all around.
I disagree. What most politicians have is the ability to perform actions on behalf of those who give them the most campaign dollars. While not impossible, it's extremely rare to encounter a politician who understands biology, ecology, chemistry, or the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. The part of how the world works that they understand is how it responds to money.
Unlike gold, silver, or copper, salmon is the currency you can eat. The world may need copper, but it needs salmon more. Copper can be found many places. Bristol Bay exists in only one place on planet earth. A politician is unlikely ever to be able to understand what that means, but for enough money they can be persuaded to act on behalf of salmon.
Last edited:
![20230310_060533[1].jpg](/forum/data/xfmg/thumbnail/18/18360-103e5a9837d576993364b85508ea612d.jpg?1678457299)
