The Pebble Mine Controversy 1

Mikayla Schneider
Geography 106.05A
April 23, 2015
SPEECH Project
The Pebble Mine Controversy
Pebble Beach, Alaska, is home to one of the largest sockeye salmon population in the
world. Every summer 30 to 40 million sockeye come back to the pristine waters to spawn. Not
too far away, a huge mineral deposit sits underground in the Bristol Bay area, near Lake Iliamna
and Lake Clark. While rich in un-mined minerals, the land brings prosperity to the fish industry.
A group of mining corporation companies have teamed together to propose a mining plan to take
advantage of the highly sought after minerals hidden in the core. The ore is said to potentially
have up to $500 billion worth of copper, gold and molybdenum. But whats the catch? By
industrial mining in that area, there is huge risk to damaging the natural aquatic habitat that
salmon depend on. The damage would be devastating, destroying one of the last and largest
salmon habitats for good. The debate on whether or not we should take the risk and jeopardize
the fishs habitat for such a large economic gain is up for question. The provocative concept
relates to social, political, economic, environmental, cultural and historical aspects on whether or
not the mining should take place.
Social:
When locals first heard about this, it prompted many Bristol Bay Alaskan tribes to
request the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) to do an assessment, in order to protect the
bay (Hunter, 2014). A 2011 survey found that 81 percent of people in the Bristol Bay are opposed

The Pebble Mine Controversy 2

to the mine (Up Close, 2014). The locals are concerned, rightfully so, for many reasons. Pebble
Mine would have huge effects on their lifestyle even if the mine itself doesnt have any accidents
that impact their streams. The community surrounding it has its own culture and way about it,
and bringing in outsiders who might potentially be disrespectful to their way of life frightens
them. The bay area doesnt seem to get a large influx of tourists to begin with, but even when
they do, it tends to be high end sport fishermen and they dont typically buy from locals (Dobb,
2010). So can they expect the people coming in for the mine to boost the local revenue?
Hunting and commercial fishing have been able to support many people in the area.
However right now, some locals are struggling financially. Local Lisa Reimers expressed
concern about what some families will do without the income from the mine. Sure, fisheries have
an income that some families can make work, but others have major concerns like truck
payments, mortgages, medical bills, and the cost of sending kids to college, and in that regard
Reimers asks the question, Without Pebble, what would we do? (Dobb, 2010).
Political:
This has been a heated political debate since the start of it all. Scientists and
environmental groups around the world have taken a stance against it. Over 50 top jewelers,
including Tiffanys and Zales, have pledged not to use gold from the mine. Seafood distributers
and restaurants have also come out against the mine (Harden, 2012). Sarah Palin is a supporter,
and backed the project while she was governor. In 2011, the residents of the little populated
borough where the mine would be built voted narrowly against the mine. Soon after the vote,
John Burns, Alaskas attorney general, tried to prove that the election was invalid and filed a

The Pebble Mine Controversy 3

lawsuit, stating that this small number of voters could not overcome the comprehensive state
attorney (Harden, 2012).
The Obama administration and the EPA have been under heat for plotting a pre-emptive
move against the mine (Harden, 2012). Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP), a group of mining
corporations who are proposing the mine, was outraged with the report the EPA drafted. They
deemed the report premature, because the plans for the mine werent finished when the report
was made. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has the authority to veto the permit required for
the mine to be built before the permit application is submitted, pending, or after its been issued,
for good reason (Up Close, 2014). In 2014 the EPA made restrictions on mining in the area based
on the proposal that was assessed. In January 2015, a federal court ruled that the EPA would halt
all restrictions and preventative activity in the Bristol Bay watershed (Keep America Fishing,
2015).
Economical:
The mine itself has a lot of value. The assessment of the minerals ranges between $100
billion to $500 billion total over the span of mining for 60 years. This is between $16 billion and
$83 billion annually. The salmon fishery assessment is valued up to $120 million annually
(Dobb, 2010). However, the minerals are not a renewable resource, and once they have been
mined, they are gone and will never come back. The incomes from the fisheries are annual and
renewable, which makes it a sustainable return. But lets do the math: if mining falls short and
only brings in $16 billion annually, it would be roughly 133 times more than the $120 million
from the fisheries. This means it would take 133 years of fishing income to equal one year of
mining income, and that is only at the short end of the predicted mining revenue. In order for

The Pebble Mine Controversy 4

fishery income to even out with the overall total mining income, it would take 833 years of the
annual $120 million revenue from the fisheries to total the 60 years of the $100 billion revenue
from the mine. This is not the ideal immediate return, and who can predict that in 833 years from
now something else might negatively impact the salmon fisheries. On top of those incomes, there
is also an economic benefit of bringing in jobs as well as a tax on the mine.
But how could this affect the economy of the area? There has been a promise made that
locals will have preference in terms of hiring. Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP) estimates that
they would need about 1,000 employees for the first 20 to 25 years and 2,000 for initial
construction (Up Close, 2014). Within 24,000 square miles, about the size of West Virginia, there
is only about 900 people a part of the population that are between 18 and 64 years old
(Dembonsky, 2006). So even if all that are able to work take the job, they would still need a large
number of workers from outside, which would disturb the peace of the serene and traditional
community. That said, the few local retailers and suppliers there could possibly see a boost in
business, although with large scale projects like this, many times big business follows, kicking
out small local retailers. There would also be revenue from the state and local taxes and royalties
(Dobb, 2010). Other aspects of social issues that have come up when discussing the mine can
have a major effect on the culture, and is elaborated in the Cultural portion of the paper.
Environmental:
The impacted environment covers about 40,000 square miles, the size of Iceland, and
includes the two biggest rivers that feed into the bay. It is estimated that the mine contains 40
million tons of copper, 2.8 million tons of molybdenum, and 107 million ounces of gold (Dobb,
2010). All are high value commodities used in manufacturing. As mentioned earlier, copper is a

The Pebble Mine Controversy 5

highly used mineral, and is one of the building blocks of the green economy. A good example is
wind turbines, as manufacturing one turbine requires thousands of pounds each (Dobb, 2010).
Because of the large amount of copper that could be extracted, the mine could potentially lower
the cost of production of these turbines, allowing more usage of green power.
Near the potential mining site, there are as many as 30 creeks and streams that salmon
have been using. The 35 mile long Upper Talarik Creek has seen 20,000 to 100,000 sockeye
salmon return yearly for spawning (Dobb, 2010). This creek is connected to the South Fork of
the Koktuli River. It is an advantageous body of water for sockeye; the surface water from
Iliamna Lake converts into groundwater and then becomes surface water again, a process that
salmon benefit from. The water is also highly oxygenated. Consequently, salmon eggs have a
favorable type of water in the streams that they need to grow (Dobb, 2010). This is a very fragile
ecosystem and a vastly intricate linked system of water, requiring balance in order for it to
operate smoothly. Any small glitch can ruin the natural prosperity it brings.
The EPA published their Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment and had some interesting
conclusions. Overall, if large scale mining were to take place, there would be inevitable
impacts, including the loss of fish-supporting streams (Up Close, 2014). There seem to be high
risks involved. The dam and containment pond could hold between 2.5 billion and 10 billion
tons of mine waste (Hunter, 2014). The copper ore would require a 100 mile long pipeline that
would cross over 30 salmon streams (Stantisi, 2010). With any type of mining being done,
disturbing rocks can possibly leach harmful metals. This is difficult to predict, and it might not
occur until 50 to 60 years in the future (Stantisi, 2010). As it is speculation, this possibility is
extremely difficult to predict. Carol Ann Woody, a fishery researcher, looked into the project. She
discovered that by mining the area, it would release toxic copper sulfide, and even extremely low

The Pebble Mine Controversy 6

levels of this would wipe out a salmons ability to smell (Stantisi, 2010). This would diminish the
fishs the ability to sense where their spawning grounds are, which could be fatal to the fish
population.
On top of the fisheries, it effects the land environment as well. The construction of the
project requires hundreds of miles of industrial roads and would devastate the landscape
(Hunter, 2014 and Stantisi, 2010). Construction and industrial mining require heavy machinery
and vehicles, which could disrupt caribou and moose migration (Dembonsky, 2006). These
aspects, such as wildlife habitats, fish populations, and land and water usage, are all a huge part
of not only nature, but the culture of Alaska.
Cultural:
In many areas all over the world, indigenous people have been uprooted from their
traditional ways and forced to embrace industrial business. Similar situations to Pebble Mine
have been made examples of, resulting in health problems, violence, decrease in traditions, and
internal strife (Dembonsky, 2006). An example would be in the Laguna reservation in New
Mexico, native plants that were used for diet and medicinal purposes were depleted by the
radioactive pollution released by a mine built in the area. Supermarkets were put up, and the new
synthetic medicine and food for the tribe made them sick because they were not used to it. The
unhealthy processed food raised cholesterol and increased diabetes, and the air and water
pollutants raised the asthma and kidney infections (Dembonsky, 2006). Wayne Garcia, who is a
part of the tribe in the Laguna area, pointed out the worst effect that mining had on his
community: the fighting within the tribe. The traditional code to live by consisted of family unity
and support, and when you bring in money and power it can result in greed and jealousy, which

The Pebble Mine Controversy 7

erode the family value (Dembonsky, 2006). Alaskan tribes see this, and are concerned. What
has happened in Laguna and other parts of the world isnt the only example, which could mean it
is could possibly happen with the inducting of Pebble Mine.
With the increase in relying on readily available manufactured food, there is a potential
decrease in younger generations interest in traditional hunting and cooking. The importance of
native languages could decline, as well as continuing significant cultural ceremonies.
Additionally, for thousands of years the indigenous Yupik tribe have depended on salmon, along
with many other plants and animals that nature has to offer in the area (Dobb, 2010). This is
their culture, these are their traditions, and those are their natural resources. In short; this is their
livelihood that is being tampered with. However, these risks are potentially avoidable. Due to the
observations from past examples, it is possible learn from their mistakes and mitigate the issues
that might arise. But what ability do we have to stop them, are all of these concerns preventable?
Historical:
Between 1988 and 1997 Cominco held the rights to Pebble and explored the property. At
the discovery of a few minerals, Northern Dynasty, a Canadian mining corporation, purchased
the property in 2001. Northern Dynasty discovered in 2004 that instead of 1 billion tons of
mineral resource, there is more than 4 billion. This initiates the planning of a mine, and spikes
environment and socio-economic research in the area. In 2007, Anglo American, a mining
corporation, went into a partnership with Northern Dynasty, creating the Pebble Limited
Partnership, PLP. Research determined that Pebble was one of the worlds most important
copper, gold and molybdenum deposits in 2008. In 2011, the EPA finished their watershed
assessment, reporting the negative environmental effects. After investing about $573 million,

The Pebble Mine Controversy 8

Anglo American withdrew from the PLP in 2013, giving Northern Dynasty total ownership. The
PLP filed three lawsuits against the EPAs pre-emptive conclusions after the EPA restricted future
development under the Clean Water Act in 2014. In 2015, the EPA removed the restrictions under
federal rule (History, 2014).
A decision will eventually need to be made. At this point, the EPA doesnt have a lot of
control with the situation. In order for the mine to start being built, the developers would need
dozens of local, state, and federal permits approved. While right now, because of the large scale
of approval needed, the unanimous authorizations of all the permits in the near future seem
unlikely. But it is not impossible.
Socially, most of the locals seem to not want this, but not all of them. A few see the
financial predicament they are in, and are open to opportunity of the mine. People and groups all
over the world have taken a stance on the political debate, while recently the PLP has taken
action towards the EPA, stopping their involvement. Economically, both sides have different
benefits, although the prosperity of the mine would bring in billions of dollars and many jobs.
Environmentally, however, there is a lot to lose. The enormous fish population is at high risk to
permanent devastation. Tribes and locals are worried about their way of life being shaken,
corrupting a highly cultural area. This has been going on for decades. The Pebble Mine debate is
certainly an important one. Do the huge economic benefits of the mine outweigh the cultural or
environmental depletion? Or maybe this is something that the locals need to survive the modern
financial expenses, even if they dont agree. The opinions of the controversial aspects seem to all
be subjective. But the question still remains: what do we value the most; salmon or copper?

The Pebble Mine Controversy 9

References
Dembonsky, A. (2006, June 7). On the Cultural Impacts of Mining. Retrieved April 2, 2015.
Dobb, E. (2010). Alaskas Choice SALMON OR GOLD. National Geographic, 218(6), 100-125
Harden, B. (2012, January 1). Ripples from Pebble felt far from Alaska. Retrieved April 23,
2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/23/pebble-mine-alaskaenvironment-salmon-indigenous-people
Hunter, P. (2014). Pebble Mine Project Could Destroy Salmons Habitat. ENR: Engineering
News-Record, 273(4), 14.
History. (2014). Retrieved April 23, 2015, from
http://www.northerndynastyminerals.com/ndm/Pebble_History.asp
Keep America Fishing. (2015). Retrieved April 23, 2015, from
http://keepamericafishing.org/action/take_action/bristolbay/#.VTiAlNrnaM8
Santisi, J. (2010). Copper, Gold and Salmon. E: The Environmental Magazine, 21(4), 12-14.
Up Close. (2014). Retrieved April 2, 2015, from http://www.pebblewatch.com/index.php/faq