Pebble's naysayers: groups abound, but will they prevail?

• Author: Kalytiak, Tracy
• Position: SPECIAL SECTION: Environmental

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

A tussle has been occurring for years in Alaska over a project with immense potential both for wealth and, its detractors claim, catastrophe. The Pebble Partnership--a 50-50 partnership between a wholly owned affiliate of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. and a wholly owned subsidiary of Anglo American PLC--is exploring the feasibility of constructing a mine and extracting immense deposits of gold, copper and molybdenum from State land located 200 miles southwest of Anchorage, in an area 17 miles upstream of Lake Iliamna.

Proponents say mining the low-grade ore--estimated to contain 60 percent copper, 30 percent gold and 10 percent molybdenum--will be managed in an environmentally responsible way, create jobs for Alaskans, put money in State tax coffers and stimulate the economy in rural areas of Alaska.

Organizations that favor development of Pebble include the Resource Development Council, Alaska Miners Association and the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce.

Opponents, however, say the ore at the mine contains potentially hazardous sulfur. They also claim there is no way to prevent a quake or other natural disaster that could result in destruction of earthen dams--also known as impoundment facilities--used to contain mining waste, upstream of places where salmon spawn.

Groups that oppose Pebble include the Renewable Resources Coalition, Bristol Bay Native Association and other Native groups, as well as organizations associated with commercial and sport fishing, including the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association, Alaska Independent Fishermen's Marketing Association, Trout Unlimited and American Rivers.

Pebble Partnership is expected to complete an environmental baseline study sometime this summer, said Pebble Chief Executive Officer John Shively, and results of a prefeasibility study will follow sometime toward the middle or end of next year. The permitting process is expected to begin in 2012 and last about three years, Shively said. The permitting would likely cover 20 to 30 years of the project's anticipated 80- to 100-year lifespan, he said.

ONGOING LITIGATION

Construction, once started, would take about four years, but lawsuits are already in play. A judge earlier this year heard arguments in a 2009 lawsuit filed in Dillingham by six Alaska tribes challenging the validity of the 2005 Bristol Bay Area Plan and seeking to require the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to construct a new plan. A ruling had not been made by press time. Another lawsuit filed in 2009 by Trustees for Alaska sought to void...