An interesting take on Pebble

[Deleted member 28227]

On one of the Pebble threads a hydrologist said that he had worked on the EIS and that it would not risk the fisheries. Every project should live or die on the merits of the environmental evaluation. I find it incredibly irritating when political intervention usurps the process- either way.

Have you read much on recent events, tons of bad faith on the project exposed. See#54

 

[diamond hitch]

I try not to get involved in projects that I'm not getting paid. Let the science dictate the answer not politics.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I try not to get involved in projects that I'm not getting paid. Let the science dictate the answer not politics.

Agreed, kinda.
...
Bio: This herd can support 10 does being kill this year

Rancher to public: I’m going to act sustainably and kill 10 does

Rancher to buddy at wildlife commission: I’m gonna shoot 50 that cool.

Buddy at wildlife commission: Dude we’re bros 50 is fine.
.....

Engineer: this stadium design will safely hold 50,000 people and will need to be replaced or overhauled in 25 years.

Team owner to the public: We are going to operate the stadium per the guide lines of the engineers, and requests his building permit.

Team owner to buddy at town planning: I can’t make enough money at 50,000 people so I’m going to install seats for 100,000 and I plan on using the stadium.

Buddy at town: Dude were bros that’s totally fine, plus once it’s built no one is gonna fight you for operation extensions or addition seating.
........
Gross oversimplification science was bad since the operator lied about the scale of the operation by orders of magnitude.

(Edited so as not to offend @antlerradar)

 

[diamond hitch]

Unless something is really screwed up, you have multiple state agencies as well as federal agencies. Trying to get the majority of those agencies together on anything is usually on par with herding cats. The problems and solutions depend not only on the deposit but on the activities proposed as well as where. As they say - the devil is in the details. I've seen great EIS's in two volumes and crappy ones in a bookcase of volumes. After 46 years of evaluating projects and EISs, you will have to pay me well to read and evaluate another project.

 

[SAJ-99]

I try not to get involved in projects that I'm not getting paid. Let the science dictate the answer not politics.

I don’t think there is a way to prove it won’t impact the fishery. I think the analysis was done in good faith, but there is no way for scientists to come to a definitive conclusion, in either direction. So the politics gets involved. The secret recordings of Pebble executives certainly didn’t help. I think that is what pisses people off most. Corp executives just buying whatever conclusion they want regardless of the science. Citizens can’t trust the process or the conclusions.

 

[idahohuntr]

I don’t think there is a way to prove it won’t impact the fishery. I think the analysis was done in good faith, but there is no way for scientists to come to a definitive conclusion, in either direction. So the politics gets involved. The secret recordings of Pebble executives certainly didn’t help. I think that is what pisses people off most. Corp executives just buying whatever conclusion they want regardless of the science. Citizens can’t trust the process or the conclusions.

I agree...science and data provide information and help quantify risks and impacts, but science does not dictate or inform societal values and preferences. These are policy decisions that should be informed by science...but it is not rational to suggest these bigger, complex issues are black and white and 'science' will give us the correct answer. How much risk to the world's largest, most pristine salmon runs is acceptable? Science can maybe tell us there is an x% chance of extinction under the proposed action, but whether x% is too much (or not enough to worry about given financial benefits) is entirely a policy decision.

 

[antlerradar]

Agreed, kinda.
...
Bio: This herd can support 10 does being kill this year

Rancher to public: I’m going to act sustainably and kill 10 does

Rancher to buddy at wildlife commission: I’m gonna shoot 50 that cool.

Buddy at wildlife commission: Dude we’re bros 50 is fine.
.....

Gross oversimplification science was bad since the operator lied about the scale of the operation by orders of magnitude.

I have been the rancher that needed to shoot 50+ does. Longest hunting season of my life. I will never do it again.
I understand you are trying to relate this to Pebble but in doing so you are showing how little you understand ranchers.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I have been the rancher that needed to shoot 50+ does. Longest hunting season of my life. I will never do it again.
I understand you are trying to relate this to Pebble but in doing so you are showing how little you understand ranchers.

It's a parable there guy, let's not read into it too much

 

[diamond hitch]

Over my career I have read the BS out of the environmental community. It is designed to enflame the citizens with lies and emotional pleas. Rarely is there enough truth to warrant a look. The EPA is a litigation agency not designed for solutions but for conflict. I can provide screwups far beyond my willingness to type. Remember : If the government was the answer - the question was really stupid! The state agencies have more than enough political influence depending on the year let alone personal bias of the state players. You just need to sit through a few enough internal bitchy cranky meetings to understand the similarities to a WWE convention.

If you really feel the need to get excited over issues like this I suggest laying naked on the floor and flogging yourself with a quirt made of barbwire. Same result. Go hunting! Plant a tree! Run over a politician! Do something really useful instead!

 

[BWALKER77]

I agree...science and data provide information and help quantify risks and impacts, but science does not dictate or inform societal values and preferences. These are policy decisions that should be informed by science...but it is not rational to suggest these bigger, complex issues are black and white and 'science' will give us the correct answer. How much risk to the world's largest, most pristine salmon runs is acceptable? Science can maybe tell us there is an x% chance of extinction under the proposed action, but whether x% is too much (or not enough to worry about given financial benefits) is entirely a policy decision.

Using societal values is problematic given society at large is very easily swayed by various and assorted groups with agendas. In short people are mostly idiots.
Montana's elk management situation is a prime example of this.

 

[BWALKER77]

And for what it's worth I am glad I bough FCX a few months ago. A copper crunch is coming.

 

[Leevs86]

I think the trump administration just rejected the permit.

 

[Irrelevant]

Show me the science where anything has lasted "in perpituity" and I'll agree it won't cause irreparable harm.

Glad it's been killed again, though it was Orange Peel that brought it back from the dead to begin with.

 

[BWALKER77]

Show me the science where anything has lasted "in perpituity" and I'll agree it won't cause irreparable harm.

Glad it's been killed again, though it was Orange Peel that brought it back from the dead to begin with.

Did you review the EIS?

 

[Irrelevant]

Did you review the EIS?

Absolutely. Want a copy of hydrogeologist license as well?

 

[Bambistew]

The sad thing about Pebble is how many people are stupid enough to believe that it will kill off all the fish in BB and devastate the fishery. Even in a worst case scenario, its not physically possible. Its like saying that killing the elk in MT will ruin elk hunting in Colorado. Its physically impossible to poison the entire ares rivers. Dilution and release timing don't add up to killing them all off. I'm not going to deny that it wouldn't have some effect to the fishery but we're talking small rearing tribs out of millions of miles of tribs, that could effect a tiny percent of the fish... which could be offset by improved water discharge rates from treatment. Also not a huge fan of perpetual water treatment... yet we have thousands of perpetual water treatment facilities all over the US, that alow some really wierd shit into the environment vs mine drainage.

Pebble is what we get when radical what's lead uninformed and uneducated people to their cause. One of the first activists has a lodge in the area rich as f and didn't want his business impacted. Qur up a bunch of fisherman that live in Washington, and away we go... Major development projects are going to be a thing of the past in the US. Is it sustainable? Seems like we're only a couple Trump administrations away from total ostracization on the world stage. China was no problem buying up every project they can.

Its easy to be against projects and development when we have a silver spoon in our mouths.

I ask this question... Did the Berkley pit kill off all the fish in the Columbia River? The environmental impact of the mine and smelter at the "headwaters" is much higher than what Pebble would be by far.

Everyone says they are not against mining, just Pebble. But almost all of them are also against, Black Butte, Twin Metals, Resolution Copper, etc, etc.

 

[BWALKER77]

Absolutely. Want a copy of hydrogeologist license as well?

Then you should know better.

 

[BWALKER77]

The sad thing about Pebble is how many people are stupid enough to believe that it will kill off all the fish in BB and devastate the fishery. Even in a worst case scenario, its not physically possible. Its like saying that killing the elk in MT will ruin elk hunting in Colorado. Its physically impossible to poison the entire ares rivers. Dilution and release timing don't add up to killing them all off. I'm not going to deny that it wouldn't have some effect to the fishery but we're talking small rearing tribs out of millions of miles of tribs, that could effect a tiny percent of the fish... which could be offset by improved water discharge rates from treatment. Also not a huge fan of perpetual water treatment... yet we have thousands of perpetual water treatment facilities all over the US, that alow some really wierd shit into the environment vs mine drainage.

Pebble is what we get when radical what's lead uninformed and uneducated people to their cause. One of the first activists has a lodge in the area rich as f and didn't want his business impacted. Qur up a bunch of fisherman that live in Washington, and away we go... Major development projects are going to be a thing of the past in the US. Is it sustainable? Seems like we're only a couple Trump administrations away from total ostracization on the world stage. China was no problem buying up every project they can.

Its easy to be against projects and development when we have a silver spoon in our mouths.

I ask this question... Did the Berkley pit kill off all the fish in the Columbia River? The environmental impact of the mine and smelter at the "headwaters" is much higher than what Pebble would be by far.

Everyone says they are not against mining, just Pebble. But almost all of them are also against, Black Butte, Twin Metals, Resolution Copper, etc, etc.

Exactly.
Even more frustrating is the area in question was set aside for exploitation of mineral resources.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Everyone says they are not against mining, just Pebble. But almost all of them are also against, Black Butte, Twin Metals, Resolution Copper, etc, etc.

I think most in Montana want to be supportive of the mining industry and to have faith in improved technology and mining environmental safeguards. HOWEVER, there are still many who continue to shudder and resist when considering the persisting damage and millions and millions of dollars paid by the public to pick up the ugly pieces after the Pegasus Gold devastation of the Little Rockies in north central Montana. There is absolutely no going back and the scar will remain forever butt ugly and needing attention with $$$$$$$ forever.
I don't intend to debate as I know the correlation is remote, but the concerns are real and the onus is on the mining industry to turn this around. IMO, pushing to develop, mine, and forever adversely impact some of the last bastions of pristine landscape is a wrong-headed approach.

 

[Irrelevant]

Death by a thousand cuts. Some of you say cut away. Other say one cut is too many. The "science" is all very clear (comparatively). But how anyone of us chooses to apply that to decision making isn't. I don't fault those that support it. But I do not. AK has the benefit of few existing cuts, making new ones still seem tolerable. Here in WA we're still making cuts on the dead body of what was once one of the largest Chinook runs on the planet.

It's the same over arching logic that leads one to think mule deer don't need anymore well pads to deal with, or elk anymore subdivisions.

Rarely will one project or action ever make a population difference. But that logic leads to down a road I won't walk.