US EPA opens door to mining of protected coastline

[Jadham]

I have not seen or read anywhere (including in the links provided) what areas within the watershed are protected and what activities they are protected from, and understand that the proposed mine site is not within such protected area(s).

Given that the mine will likely have a minor impact on the overall sockeye run, there is no credible evidence it will have any impact on fishing in the Bristol Bay.

Although Trump makes a convenient scapegoat, and while he did appoint the EPA director, I highly doubt he has any personal stake in the venture (or could even find it on a map).

Most micro cap base metal miners have annual revenues of $200-400 million (e.g. Taseko & Copper Mountain) even with copper price in the basement (until the last year)... so would likely double the economic activity in the area with the reduced footprint mine they are proposing now (and assuming commercial fishing minorly affected)

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Jadham

I have not seen or read anywhere (including in the links provided) what areas within the watershed are protected and what activities they are protected from, and understand that the proposed mine site is not within such protected area(s).

Given that the mine will likely have a minor impact on the overall sockeye run, there is no credible evidence it will have any impact on fishing in the Bristol Bay.

Although Trump makes a convenient scapegoat, and while he did appoint the EPA director, I highly doubt he has any personal stake in the venture (or could even find it on a map).

Most micro cap base metal miners have annual revenues of $200-400 million (e.g. Taseko & Copper Mountain) even with copper price in the basement (until the last year)... so would likely double the economic activity in the area (assuming commercial fishing minorly affected)

Excerpt .... right from the governments own EPA site .....

After careful consideration of available science in the recently completed multi-year Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment and other available information, including extensive materials provided by the Pebble Limited Partnership, EPA Region 10 decided to proceed under its Clean Water Act Section 404(c) regulations to protect Bristol Bay resources from the adverse environmental effects of mining the Pebble deposit in southwest Alaska.

Action of Determination under 404c
ORDER-015038
Record ID: 324712

Your comment .... Most micro cap base metal miners have annual revenues of $200-400 million

You are talking "revenues"

I'd suggest revenues include all income not exclusive to that site and does not suggest what portion of that entire revenue stream translates to local economic development. Revenues are not the same as economic benefit - far from it.

[Jadham]

Ezm

... that is an EPA summary of its stay order in 2014, whose director was an Obama toadie (just like the new one is for Trump). It is not a designation of a park or permanent protected order for that area. And is now effectively suspended as NDM is allowed to reapply for permitting.

For micro-cap miners, such as Taseko and CMMC mentioned, their revenues are the sole result of sales from their (single) mine production. The majority of their revenues is spent on worker salaries and equipment purchases, with fairly thin profit margins. Furthermore, the workers, locally sourced, then spend their money locally (unlike Seattle fisherman), usually leading to amplified effect on the local economy rather than diminished effect, as you suggest (not to mention royalties paid in addition to taxes ...)

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in unregulated development. But the rhetoric around Pebble has been highly exaggerated by the enviros (and then used by the commercial fisherman).

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Jadham

Ezm

... that is an EPA summary of its stay order in 2014, whose director was an Obama toadie (just like the new one is for Trump). It is not a designation of a park or permanent protected order for that area. And is now effectively suspended as NDM is allowed to reapply for permitting.

For micro-cap miners, such as Taseko and CMMC mentioned, their revenues are the sole result of sales from their (single) mine production. The majority of their revenues is spent on worker salaries and equipment purchases, with fairly thin profit margins. Furthermore, the workers, locally sourced, then spend their money locally (unlike Seattle fisherman), usually leading to amplified effect on the local economy rather than diminished effect, as you suggest (not to mention royalties paid in addition to taxes ...)

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in unregulated development. But the rhetoric around Pebble has been highly exaggerated by the enviros (and then used by the commercial fisherman).

It is a protection order. A stay order is exactly that. It effectively stops (stays) any action (like development) therefore protecting the subject area. Let's not go back and forth on this, it's very well documented and you are, respectfully, incorrect.

I didn't say anything about a "park" and a designation/classification refers to a specific action as it relates to a geographical boundary. This is found in the scope of the subject in the initial synopsis of the document.

And yes, this last month, It has been suspended by Trump's cronies.

The reason I used the government's own information to position my opinion on this simply underpins the gravity of the potential for adverse environmental impact in this specific watershed. This is not fake news or eco-terrorists or some other trash rag article.

The Bristol Bay Watershed is a very important and sensitive area, particularly as it relates to half of the world's sockeye population.

I have presented the facts, some of my opinions and provided credible resources.

You have provided your opinion, and some data, which I respect and acknowledge.

Given all I see - regarding the development in this watershed - That's more than enough for me to say I don't support mining and development of this high potential in this area.

We are not going to agree and that's cool. But give it some consideration - the cute little sockeyes (which are delicious BTW) will thank you for it.

The sustenance fishermen, commercial fishermen, area guides, processors and all the people employed and who benefit from this area, who ARE and HAVE BEEN economically benefiting from this area will also thank you.

And they are doing it with little or no significant impact to the watershed.

[Jadham]

That is fine if we disagree.

However, in closing, I do want to re-iterate that the stay order was instated by an Obama crony in the EPA, and so it is merely tit for tat for it be effectively rescinded by the new government's EPA crony.

No reasonable evidence or realistic scenario had been forwarded by those opposing groups about how the mine might adversely affect the sockeye runs. There are also no recent examples of modern mines in North America that have eliminated migratory fish runs, just like there have been no tanker disasters in NA since Exxon Valdez. There are no endangered species in the area, as far as I am aware of.

If they want to truly preserve it they would make it into a National Park, but instead they play politics and leave the area in limbo.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Can't figure it out ???? I guess that proves my opinion of Donalds core supporters

I don't like Donald Trump. But to insinuate that his supporters are less intelligent than those of Hillary Clinton is asinine and the opposite is more likely true. Leftism has no foresight, it is an unsustainable ideology. As her supporters demonstrated.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Newview01

I don't like Donald Trump. But to insinuate that his supporters are less intelligent than those of Hillary Clinton is asinine and the opposite is more likely true. Leftism has no foresight, it is an unsustainable ideology. As her supporters demonstrated.

Well if you aren't a Trump supporter it doesn't t matter then, you realize he's an idiot.

[Unregistered user]

Idiot? How does an idiot turn millions into billions? How does an idiot get elected when the MSM and even his own party were against him? When his opponent spent a billion to get the job and failed? Idiot? Look at our PM.

[roughneckin]

Scott Pruitt is the scariest thing to happen to the EPA ever. He is the administrator of a department that he has sued more than a dozen times. If the human race wants protection for important areas this is not the man that they want leading it. He has not a single environmental bone in his body. Not sure what Trump was thinking putting him there unless it was to dismantle every positive thing that has been done to protect the environment in the last 50 years. On his own website, he admits being the, "leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda." The EPA has to be active or business will knock down every forest to produce every dollar and walk away leaving giant open pit mines all over the place.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by roughneckin

Scott Pruitt is the scariest thing to happen to the EPA ever. He is the administrator of a department that he has sued more than a dozen times. If the human race wants protection for important areas this is not the man that they want leading it. He has not a single environmental bone in his body. Not sure what Trump was thinking putting him there unless it was to dismantle every positive thing that has been done to protect the environment in the last 50 years. On his own website, he admits being the, "leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda." The EPA has to be active or business will knock down every forest to produce every dollar and walk away leaving giant open pit mines all over the place.

What happens when you mix politics and your own Christian views.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps...ental-activism

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Scott h

Well if you aren't a Trump supporter it doesn't t matter then, you realize he's an idiot.

The idiots are those who claim one sides' supporters are more intelligent than the other.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Newview01

The idiots are those who claim one sides' supporters are more intelligent than the other.

That last election was simply two of the most horrifying choices anyone could ever ask for.

Problem is, many people ended up voting "for the party and the ideology" in both cases. That doesn't make them stupid in that regard ....

BUT .....

The people who STILL can't see Trump for what he is and continue to support him really make me wonder .......

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by EZM

That last election was simply two of the most horrifying choices anyone could ever ask for.

Problem is, many people ended up voting "for the party and the ideology" in both cases. That doesn't make them stupid in that regard ....

BUT .....

The people who STILL can't see Trump for what he is and continue to support him really make me wonder .......

I'm well past wondering. Virtually every time I've bothered to listen to that wanker give a speech I've been left shaking my head at the boorish way he comes across and the lack of intellect it takes to find him impressive.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Scott h

I'm well past wondering. Virtually every time I've bothered to listen to that wanker give a speech I've been left shaking my head at the boorish way he comes across and the lack of intellect it takes to find him impressive.

Ok we get you don’t like Trump. But lets talk about the alternative. Do you believe the US would be better off with Hillary?

[roughneckin]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Ok we get you don’t like Trump. But lets talk about the alternative. Do you believe the US would be better off with Hillary?

When it comes down to the brass tax. Would it be better for Canada to have Hillary rather than Donald. Yes especially with his rediculous requests when it comes to NAFTA.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by roughneckin

When it comes down to the brass tax. Would it be better for Canada to have Hillary rather than Donald. Yes especially with his rediculous requests when it comes to NAFTA.

That is not what I asked, nor is it a relevant question in the terms of my question. We don’t get to elect leaders of other nations. All we should hope for is someone who turns the tide of globalism, and he is more likely to do that than Hillary.

Looks like Austria is poised to get an anti-establishment leader. Good news for Europe.

[roughneckin]

Originally Posted by Newview01

That is not what I asked, nor is it a relevant question in the terms of my question. We don’t get to elect leaders of other nations. All we should hope for is someone who turns the tide of globalism, and he is more likely to do that than Hillary.

Looks like Austria is poised to get an anti-establishment leader. Good news for Europe.

At the time Germany thought Hitler was the best to lead their country. Not even close to what we are talking about but Poland wasn’t to thrilled with it.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by roughneckin

Scott Pruitt is the scariest thing to happen to the EPA ever. He is the administrator of a department that he has sued more than a dozen times. If the human race wants protection for important areas this is not the man that they want leading it. He has not a single environmental bone in his body. Not sure what Trump was thinking putting him there unless it was to dismantle every positive thing that has been done to protect the environment in the last 50 years. On his own website, he admits being the, "leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda." The EPA has to be active or business will knock down every forest to produce every dollar and walk away leaving giant open pit mines all over the place.

I agree, he was not the choice a pragmatic, intelligent and effective president would want to appoint.

We know Trump's position on the environment, climate change and issues where economic development is weighed against environmental protection BUT he still should have appointed someone he trusts, who is committed to the goals and charter of what the EPA is supposed to be.

To hire/appoint a person to work with you, who is trustworthy, but may challenge your mandates with sound arguments, a person you could work with to reach consensus, yet agree to disagree, would have been the intelligent and pragmatic move.

That's how you ensure you have evaluated all the options and have made the best choice for the country and the people.

Unfortunately, I am convinced, the most important thing to Donald is Donald, and his ego, and how others must respect, fear or yield to him. It's all about him. That's why he appointed him.

He is, and will go down in history as, the most self centred, narcissistic, irrational and ignorant president that has ever been elected. He is an absolute fool and the entire world views him for exactly what he is, an embarrassing, grossly ignorant, arrogant, loud mouth bully and narcissistic clown.

Everyone he appoints must be sheep yielding to him. Those that do not fall in line, are removed.

The guy simply does not have the capacity or capability to occupy the position. He is dangerous and destructive to the US.

He is solidifying, polarising the rest of the world's ideologies, making the world far more dangerous tomorrow than it was yesterday.

He has destroyed the credibility of the US and inserted himself as "the clown of the earth", effectively making friends into enemies.

Destroying the environment is a minor issue here. He thinks it's more important to undo Obama's legacy and insert his own.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by EZM

I agree, he was not the choice a pragmatic, intelligent and effective president would want to appoint.

We know Trump's position on the environment, climate change and issues where economic development is weighed against environmental protection BUT he still should have appointed someone he trusts, who is committed to the goals and charter of what the EPA is supposed to be.

To hire/appoint a person to work with you, who is trustworthy, but may challenge your mandates with sound arguments, a person you could work with to reach consensus, yet agree to disagree, would have been the intelligent and pragmatic move.

That's how you ensure you have evaluated all the options and have made the best choice for the country and the people.

Unfortunately, I am convinced, the most important thing to Donald is Donald, and his ego, and how others must respect, fear or yield to him. It's all about him. That's why he appointed him.

He is, and will go down in history as, the most self centred, narcissistic, irrational and ignorant president that has ever been elected. He is an absolute fool and the entire world views him for exactly what he is, an embarrassing, grossly ignorant, arrogant, loud mouth bully and narcissistic clown.

Everyone he appoints must be sheep yielding to him. Those that do not fall in line, are removed.

The guy simply does not have the capacity or capability to occupy the position. He is dangerous and destructive to the US.

He is solidifying, polarising the rest of the world's ideologies, making the world far more dangerous tomorrow than it was yesterday.

He has destroyed the credibility of the US and inserted himself as "the clown of the earth", effectively making friends into enemies.

Destroying the environment is a minor issue here. He thinks it's more important to undo Obama's legacy and insert his own.

I agree!

[Helgs28]

Chance to comment on the potential mine:

http://action.savebristolbay.org/pag...entsC?js=false

(Today is last day to do so)