I prefer mine with a nice garlic sauce. Helps take the edge off the bitter taste of truth.

What is it that some people do not see about large corporations? We already had BP not maintaining their pipeline in Alaska to improve the bottom line, and the resultant spills. Let the EPA draft a proposal that will help assure that no accident does happen, have a permanent EPA staff on site, and let the company foot the bill. Fat chance they will go for that, and really, that might not even get past mother nature's extremes. We could use the mineral wealth but we don't need another man made disaster. Maybe if they quarried the overlying rock (instead of blasting it to rubble) and built a series of dams with it, (starting with a notch in the bedrock) it could be mined safely. They could collect all the rain and snow and keep recycling the water. Let them invest in methods to improve, rather than degrade, the environment. Going beyond the minimal engineering of what will be cheapest and barely work under good conditions, should be the norm not the exception. Stockholders need to to get honest returns, not from the pillage of the planet.

If a possible future leader would make tar sands as the most important issue on day one, then a gold mine could certainly be second. You can eat fish, sure, but money is much more important than food.....er RIGHT?

There are safe ways to mine these resources and guard against the tailings spilling. In truth, accidents where retention dams break are very rare and with proper precautions and a secondary containment barrier the odds on a spill could be reduced to near zero. The EPA needs to stop being an obstructionist to every business proposal and start working with businesses to address concerns and reduce risks. The EPA under the current administration has been coming out of the gate with the attitude that projects should not happen even before a project plan has been submitted for review. This is not the way they are supposed to operate. They are supposed to make reasoned decisions based on project plans and risks, not start out with a blanket no and force the companies to go to court right off the bat to have them overruled. If the EPA worked with the companies instead of taking such a blatantly adversarial attitude things might improve. Instead the EPA gets overruled by the courts because they can not back up there snap decisions and the companies get to move ahead with far less protections than if the EPA had taken the approach of working with the companies to start with.

JS in SD,

The historical fact is that corporations have one singular purpose, to make profit for investors. Concerns about the environment or groups of indigenous people who live in those environments are seen as irrelevant, if not as an impediment to that singular goal.

The entire charge and purpose of the Environmental Protection Agency is to make sure that corporations act in ways that take into consideration other concerns than just their singular one of profit making at any expense.

Business and economy are not the only measures of our society and national interests. Business is not a conscious entity, it has no morality nor memory but it does have a proven history of destructive habits borne of bottom line and short term thinking.

What do you suppose the given odds were that the Deep Horizon blow out in the gulf was estimated at prior to it's occurrence?

Then we have to ask who it is exactly that will benefit from this mine and these billions of tons of copper and what who will be damaged and what will be lost should the mine proceed. The EPA is doing exactly the job they are charged with and their adversarial role is necessary.

I would imagine it's pretty easy to dismiss possible environmental damage and decimation of 4000 yr old culture in Alaska from South Dakota.

JS in SD, I'm sure that the EPA would be happy to assist with licensing if they hadn't been bitten by snakes so many times in the past. From BP's spills to Fracking in your own back yard. You should ask your self the question, why won't Exxon tell YOU what's in their fracking hydraulics? When they (Corporations) become forthright and truthful with information then maybe the EPA and America can gain a little bit of trust for the folks that gave us Love Canal and numerous other disasters that make us all distrustful. I think you and I can at least agree upon that can't we?

Mr Palin (Todd) has worked for BP (Bad Petroleum)

It looks like those who favor fish over gold are pretty much the ones who condemn the third world as a bunch of backwards animals unwilling to help themselves.

The backwards animals too willing to help themselves are the ones who ignore environmental damage in favor of profit. The same ones who will greed themselves out of existence.

oneman.....I guess that would be all animals. The reproduce and eat up all available food sources and then the population collapses.

The mines will still be there, it won't go away. However the environment will be destroy for decades to come.

It takes a no brainer to know the most devastate impact and plan out the best possible way to do this. However, corporations don't care about, all they know about are PROFITS, PROFITS and MORE PROFITS.

Yes, this will create jobs, but protect environment and plan out carefully also create jobs as well. However, when there are accidents, who would foot the bill? Not corporation but us tax payers.

just think, if they do it right, they could end up with this:

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_697.html

the berkely pit, a huge hole in the ground full of deadly, corrosive water

JS in SD,

I don't think the EPA is saying no. What they are doing is pre-emptively expressing their concerns. We should have no issue with that and even welcome their involvement early on. If those proposing this mine understand and address the concerns ahead of time, maybe they will receive a "warmer welcome".

Really this makes sense, let everybody know early enough that maybe their plans can be changed and adjusted to satisfy the concerns. The EPA is going to collect opinion, that's a good thing. Sounds like there is the potential for some huge profits here. If they make the right investments to address the concerns, there should still be plenty of opportunity left, just a bit less of it. I think that based on the info in the article, what is being proposed is a "standard practice", minimized cost approach. That seems logical when you are out to make the biggest profit. However, what the EPA is saying is that this isn't a "standard practice" situation. I suspect that if the miners compromise a bit and take added measures to protect the concerns that the EPA has given, the potential for a win-win situation exists.

The problem is that rarely do companies try to find adequate solutions to satisfy environmental concerns. Instead they fight it and take legal action to try to make the EPA go away. This is as stupid as the EPA taking an arbitrary stance before trying to find solutions to the concerns. The EPA and the companies shouldn't act like the other is the enemy, but instead a partner who they should negotiate with to reach a reasonable solution.

I would much rather see the EPA being pro-active like this than coming in later and shutting down the mine. That is the way it should be. The companies can know up front what it is going to cost them and the EPA can know what to expect. The EPA doesn't exist to make life miserable on business, even though it has sometimes seemed like that in the past. The EPA is out their representing us, the citizens, trying to make sure our environment doesn't get destroyed in the process of making money.

Part of what has occurred in the past is that "pro-business", anti-EPA government leaders have often disarmed and hindered the EPA from doing its job. Then along comes some pro-environment government leaders and there is a big mess created previously. So then the EPA has to go out and clean up the mess and make business owners angry because the previous government let them slide on the rules. The EPA, created by Nixon, is not supposed to be political. They are professionals with a job to do. But it has been made political when some politicians have tried to disband or hinder the EPA. When they do that, a political cycle takes place in the protection of the environment. We go through periods of poor enforcement and environmental neglect, followed by periods of cracking down on violators who were deliberately allowed to take irresponsible positions in favor of higher profits. People like to point out examples of the EPA crippling businesses when in reality, maybe that business shouldn't have existed in the first place, or had been created with the environmental issues addressed right off the bat.

@ softdude

It doesn't matter who is watching money will corrupt them sooner or later. Why do we need this gold? Where will it end up? I think we all know the answer to the second question; it will end up where all of our other resources are going to end up, China! American is on the brink of being another Mexico, piss poor and unable to stop it's criminals from ruling. Not like we don't have criminals ruling now! A few years from now a report will come out detailing who took bribes to get this proposed raping approved and how it cost American Tax Payers Billions. Investment firms like Bain Capital will have stripped every last dollar from the ground and left an environmental night mare that cost tax payers Billions to clean up. This is a sad day for America but more for the people that live in this area and use its resources to survive. Very Sad!

iT IS WAY PAST TIME TO DEFUND THE EPA! a 1 in 1 million chance of dam failure, and they are trying to scare people into thinking that all the rivers and streams in the area will DEFINITELY be destroyed. Instead of recommendations of secondary barriers and observing construction and operations lets just prevent any actually progress. The EPA has become not a safety organization but one that has gone overboard with authority and would stop progress as well as putting human lives and livelihoods in danger over a nonexistent threat. They prevent farmers from growing that have been farming for decades if they find a bettle on the land, or if they say the land contains vegitation that MAY be habitable to an "endangered" insect or rodent EVEN though NONE live in the area. They will prevent a road from being widened by 5 feet to increase safety ( even if the road was built 40 ears ago) without an expensive "study" on what rodets and insects might be in the area and impacted by widening the road 5 feet. The EPA uses no commn sense but instead is a heavy handed authoritarian entity. We need a department that can use common sense to promote business, safety and livelihoods while protecting the overall general environment.

Money over life, money is more important to the corporations, they have people carry guns to protect there money, yet try to protect your life with one. Wait till they destroy the arctic drilling for oil they just cant wait, destroying our planet for there greed. And there are millions who go to bed hungry while they kill the planet and live life high. But then the system is designed for us to feed the one %.

I have no love for the EPA but does anyone really believe that the mine owners are really going to put any effort into protecting the area if it costs them even 2 cents. If you do I have a bridge to sell you. They'll put up a show and then have an accident and the taxpayer will get another bill to foot.

WHy do they calll them COnservatives if the only thing they want to conserve is their favored place at the feeding trough?

all of you forget what happened on wall street, big business will absolutely take the cheapest way to maximize their profits. And they will get away with it. Only they will spend more in fighting the EPA than it would have cost them to take the precaution to save the environment in the first place. They won't care about the fishing industry, unless they were involved in the fishing industry. I f not their interest then they don't care what will happen to the environment.Plain and simple

Those evil corporations with their horrible profits that give me a job, fill my 401K and make sure my children have a roof over their head. Oh they are so bad! Save the fish from the slight possibility of danger and the population of 32 Indians who live by the 20 miles of streams!

Allow me to explain some things about mining operations near watersheds:

1. Even if they have a collection dam, there are still constant leaks. They have to drain any overflow during rain (and it rains a lot in that part of Alaska), but even more so than that you are creating a concentration gradient with a passable boundary (rock isn't a solid boundary to minerals - stuff gets through it, like mercury) in between the polluted mine run-off and the clear streams and lakes - poisons will leak through, slowly to be sure, but still in high enough concentrations to harm wildlife.

2. Even if the odds are long for a dam failure during the mine's operational lifetime, what happens after the vein runs out and the mining firms move on? Are they really going to be willing to maintain that dam for hundreds, for thousands of years? Or are they going to do what just about every mining firm in America does, and avoid paying for the cleanup by paying the cheap fine for violating pollution laws instead, and dump everything in the watershed? Seeing as how its cheaper to pay the fine for violating the rules than it is to properly clean up the place, most companies opt to simply dump into the water supply and pay the palsy one or two million in fines.

3. The Teck Resources mining company has its finger in this pie. On record, they are one of the most polluting companies on the planet - their modus operandi is to just ignore the laws and pay fines, like I talked about in point number two. The good news is that Teck won't be the actual developers (they sold the rights to Dynasty Minerals), but as the initial surveyors you know that they developed the site with loose environmental controls in mind, because that is what Teck does. They probably sold the land to Dynasty, with the explanation that "you'll have to break a few laws to get maximum profit out of the vein".

4. It isn't just the river that will feel the hurt. Dead salmon carcases sustain the pine forests in the region (keep in mind that Alaska soil is normally poor - most of it was stripped away by glaciers until recently, so the salmon carcasses are needed by the trees to keep them healthy), and in turn the pine forests sustain everything else. The Bristol Watershed sustains an enormous number of valuable fish species - not just salmon, but trout and white sturgeon. One of the last remaining concentrations of sea otter depends on the nutrients that Bristol supplies to the ocean, and it has the highest population density of grizzly bear on the planet. All of these wonderful things are threatened by the mine.

3. The Chinese own close to a fourth of both Dynasty and Teck Resources - so at least one fourth of the potential profit will never be seen by Americans. Oh, but China doesn't mind destroying America's environment to make a buck.

4. This is just in general, but Rome didn't fall to the barbarians because of poor leadership, or indefensible borders, or the million other things that are offered up to explain Rome's fall. No, the main cause was the Roman need for warm water for their baths. EVERY major Roman settlement, every last one, had about a 50 mile radius around it in which not a single tree was spared. Romans needed hot water, and hot water required burning wood, and so the forests of Europe burned from the Danube to Hadrian's wall. With the trees dead and gone, Roman farmers discovered that the soil quickly became unable to support wheat, because minerals simply washed out into the ocean without tree roots to hold them in place. And so Rome had to conquer more land, to grow more food, but everywhere Rome went the bath-houses followed, and the vicious cycle repeated itself, over and over again, until Rome was utterly spent and could spread no further. Let the fall of Rome be a lesson to all of us, that civilization and environmentalism depend on one another. Humans aren't so amazing that we can survive without nature to sustain our crops and to keep our water drinkable. And that is the real problem, far too often we do not represent the REAL price of goods, the environmental price, and so we slowly drive ourselves towards our doom, just as the Romans once did.

I'm pretty sick and tired of seeing sites where business has come and gone and left a huge mess for society to clean up. Happens all the time.

A company shouldn't be able to even start, until they can post bond to pay for the mess they leave behind, as well as pay for any "serious events."

No. This shouldn't be allowed, and shouldn't be used as a guise of "jobs". Jobs don't mean anything, when you lose a food supply. Tell people to stop having so many kids, and there wouldn't be a problem feeding them.

I am sick and tired of people putting their own selfish agendas ahead of the what is good for future generations. For every child you have, you are also making tons and tons of more garbage, you are wasting thousands of tons of resources, like copper, cadmium, rhodium, etc., driving further destruction of the environment. Did any of you know about the mining of volcanic vents in the ocean, destroying unique species, and further poisoning the ocean? No? Probably not.

The worst is what actually happens to the children. No money to raise them, people having dangerous jobs, and leaving their spouses with 5 kids to raise on their own, people stroking their own egos, and being so selfish in having 3 or more children, not giving a damn about what they face, what their grandchildren face. I am sick of it! YOU CANNOT SAY YOU LOVE YOUR CHILDREN, AND ADVOCATE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT!!!!! A big part of that destruction, is having more kids than you should.

Of course, I will have some idiot redneck shouting that he can do what he wants, and I should have no say. Well guess what! Its my nieces and nephews, my cousin's kids, and my planet, too, and I'll be damned if I don't speak my mind against you selfish BRATS!!!

Humans in this part of the world can't support themselves without decent middle-class jobs either, and no, we are not a socialist country just yet either. It used to be that a couple of million decent-paying jobs existed in mining and in processing primary metals here in the US, but we have largely used-up those resources over the last 150+ years here. Now we have to buy such minerals from overseas sources instead of mining locally, which greatly raises our costs of doing business, as have the imposition of expensive environmental protection laws on top of the desire for middle class wages, and the combination of higher costs is what has driven many of our former employers overseas. If it hadn't been for our advanced economic prowess over the last century, we might all be speaking another language now too, and the environmental movement would not be nearly as strong if half of all Americans were still simple sustenance farmers either.

The proposed mine would provide hundreds of thousands of middle-income jobs between the mining, supply, refining, and transportation industries, let alone another million service-sector jobs created, and would also free America from having to purchase such minerals from foreign sources too (read trade deficit). Yes, it would be infinitely preferable for the mine operator to be proactive and a decent corporate citizen when it comes to environmental responsibility. I think that most of us are only seeing the word gold and failing to see words like molybdenum and copper, without which we can't harden steel or manufacture copper wire. Do you environmentalists like having electricity in your nice suburban houses or do you figure that you could do without? How does that electricity get there, maybe by truck?

And while we are at it, looking for new sources of raw materials, now might be a good time to look for new sources of phosphorus too, without which we can't grow high-yield crops either. World production of phosphorus peaked 24 years ago and is already off by half from its peak. Perhaps some new sources of oil might be in order too, since we may have already reached peak oil too, and because if we have to use natural gas for a vehicle fuel, that supply won't last half as long as forecast either. Do you know that it takes two tanks 5 ft wide by 2 ft diameter to hold as much natural gas as the energy content of 18 gallons of gasoline, at 3600 PSI, which will render the effective range of small cars powered by natural gas a fairly short distance???

http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2012/03/chrysler-unveils-cng-ram

Of course, we could do it your way too, and send all of the good middle class jobs somewhere else, as another couple of million Americans slide into poverty, while the rich just keep on getting richer too. Yes, if the rabid environmental crowd has its way, most residents of large urban areas will eventually be forced to resort to walking to whatever local supply is available, which will not support a population density any higher than that of simple subsistence farming either.

How are we going to grow enough crops without fuel, harvest those crops, transport those crops to storage and processing facilities, process them, and then transport them to large urban warehouses and food suppliers, then transport them to retail stores and restaurants without fuel, or dependent on natural gas for our primary vehicle (and farm tractor fuel)? Good luck with that one, eh? What would happen if you walked to your local small grocery store and the shelves were bare, which is the logical end result of current rabid urban environmental policy from an urban logistics standpoint???

Did the environmental crowd tell you that billions of people may have to die in order to attain urban sustainability over the next 50-100 years too???

Again, I highly recommend the new book "The End of Growth", written by Richard Heinberg, the senior research fellow at the Post-Carbon Institute, not because the book supports the rabid environmental crowd so much, but because the book offers our future economic and indeed urban sustainability direction once our raw materials begin to become depleted, a point which we are closing in on rather rapidly. Believe me, that future is very likely not going to be very bright for the vast majority of us given our unrestrained capitalist historical bent here.

Chapter summaries from the book are available here:

http://www.postcarbon.org/end-of-growth-chapters/

One more good reason to allow the mining of this copper, gold, and molybdenum reserve is to create enough wealth to begin to move substantially in the direction of mass urban sustainability in the lower 48, without which a whole lot of people including Americans may very well die of starvation over the next couple of generations as a consequence.

And you thought that Social Security had a long-term sustainability issue!!!

Apparently the vast majority of people do not understand, nor care to, about how the modern mining industry works. The even be able to apply for a mining permit in the US a potential company must supply the government with a plan of mining that includes what you're mining, how much it will profit potentially, the process of how you are going to mine the materials, all potential safety concerns and the means to mitigate those concerns with EPA and MSHA approved measures. For those who don't know what MSHA is, it is the mining industry's own version of OSHA, that only deals with mines. Mining companies hire MSHA certified officials to work at their mine to make sure it is within proper codes.

The most important thing, however, is that to even APPLY for a permit, the company has to provide a detailed plan on how to restore the land mined to a useable and equal value as what it was before mining took place. For the idiots out there, this means if you mine out prime farmland, you must give back something of equal value as prime farmland when you close the mine. This is a federal law, and no, you can't just not do it. This also comes at company expense, so you can't say it's from taxpayers.

One last note for all the hippies and hipsters out there, I just thought that you should know that the mining industry is responsible for 80% of the environmental research that goes on today, and hires more environmental engineers than every government agency combined. They are actually paying for the research you are so proud of.

"If it can't be grown, it has to be mined." "Ban mining, let the bastards freeze in the dark."

Knife104... it only makes sense that the Mining industry is responsible fore the environmental research because they have to dig samples and analyze them for specific content. When you expose all that heavy metal to the environment and it leaches out into the main water supply then that could mean serious trouble.

I dont think there is such a thing as Mining responsibily. When have you ever seen a company replace a huge mountain that they flattened for coal or other natural resources. Never! That doesnt happen. It costs too much money. Like someone else said.. they just pay the small fine and move on.

Now if they really did replace the huge pock mark left in the earth then maybe just maybe I might think about it if they could really mitigate the heavy metal pollution. Perhaps by using a filter to filter out the heavy metals from the dirty water before storing that water in a holding pit.

Jut my 2 cents...

Earth first! We'll mine other planets later. :D

Knife104, you claim that the mining industry is responsible for 80% of the environmental research in this area. it is not because they are concerned about the environment or because they are benevolent, earth-first companies, it's because of RISK MANAGEMENT, lawsuits, civil suits, etc. If they could leaving their tailings and heavy metal residue right where they mined it, they would in a nanosecond.

The board of directors and corporate officers of Northern Dynasty, by the way, are comprised mostly of Canadians and therefore not subject to US criminal prosecution, the same reason BP's top executives were not subject to criminal prosecution in the gulf oil spill. Oh, maybe a wrist slap and an butt chewing by a dog and pony Congressional investigation, but nothing more. And isn't it ALWAYS that way??

And of course, if there was a massive contamination to either the watershed and shut down the fishing industry, the Alaskan right wing politicos would blame lack of EPA oversight, same as the EPA were blamed for lack of oversight on the BP oil spill. And of course, nothing happened to anyone except to those who were profoundly affected by losing their jobs, their livelihoods, etc.

Mike,

You're right, mining companies do not put the top back onto a mountain. There are several reasons for this, one, it would be prohibitively expensive, but more than that, it is because the land is put to better use usually. The mine I worked for in PA leveled the area when it was finished mining operations and built 500 acres of farmland and a small scale wind farm on the land. Previously, this land had no real value other than aesthetics. There were no endangered animals, no diverted water supplies. The land was vastly improved after operations ceased, and at a cost efficient level as well. You see, mines worry about their profits, of course, they and you would be stupid not to. But there is a level of community welfare to be had.

Also, you think most people, environmentalists included, wouldn't dump their crap wherever they wanted if they could? That is called human laziness, not corporate greed. As to the heads of organizations, well the fact they do not fear criminal prosecution is partly thanks to the fact that it is too expensive to run a company inside the United States now. So of course companies move their HQ overseas, it's cost efficient. And of course everything is about risk management and lawsuits, Americans in general would rather sue somebody than actually work for a living, we live in a litigant society now. Regardless of the reasons behind their actions, the fact still remains that the entire environmental movement rests securely on the financial shoulders of the people they claim to hate and attack. Don't even mention the crazy environmentalists that go out and bomb pipelines and dams, causing the disasters they scream about.

I guess i forgot that the gold rush boom in 1849 destroyed all of california, and the gold rush of 1890 destroyed Alaska. Colorado is a dead state unable for life t0 survive thanks to mining also. Mining never helped the citizens of the country and never provided a better life for anyone. There are not manmade lakes teaming with fish which have come from old mining sites either. No it is so much better to never try to advance or grow, it should be a capital crime to walk on grass or to cut down a tree to build a house.. leave all metals underground and never build a car, building, plane or even a store. everyone should have to find a nice cave to live in as long as you do not displace a wild animal. And you should never ever be allowed to fish or hunt you may deprive another animal of some food. No you cannot eat grass either that is a food supply for deer cattle and rabbits.

TOO many of you want to prohibit any human activities instead of using common sense so people can live AND prosper.Many of us are reaching are limit with the PC environmentalist BS. Take you PC BS and shove it up your @ss. If you are truly worried about man made global warming and there being no resources for humans in 10 years please please do all you can to prevent this...... Hold your breath for as long as you can, if you do you will cut down the CO2 you would have released depriving plants of food they need, you will also help prevent overpopulation before this becomes your next big worry, as well as reducing the amount of oil and oil products you would have used leaving more for everyone else!

After the metals are extracted where do they go, to China, or to another "high bidder"? Into whose pockets goes the proceeds? Why should soil from the United States of America be raped and pillaged to fill only a few pockets? Gold, copper, and molybdenum are not renewable resources. A speculator who gains rights to minerals through purchase or lease of fee simple property within the United States is a steward of United States property, has no discharge rights. Individuals have no right to pack up American ground and send it away. Are we a colony of China, a dirt pile to be dug up to provide China with raw materials?

Trust me - women aren't jealous of her. Competent, intelligent, well balanced, productive, family and community oriented and compassionate women are disgusted with her. She gives all of us a bad name.

Oh please! The best thing she ever did for Alaska was leave.

German Gem

It's time for you to update your status page on Palin......no one and I mean no one (including the teapublicans) give a ratsazz about her.

she's as about as outdated as the picture you use!

Palin didn't even find a way to finish out her elected office as Governor of Alaska. If the mining industry fisheries biologists cant' find a way for mining and salmon to coexist, doorknob dumb momma griz can't either. Anyone who thinks she's bright is, um, not too bright. Like my backwoods grandma said "Sarah Palin is backwoods, no one in their right mind would want someone who's backwoods running the country".

hey b dune, my pic is current as of last week. where's yours??????

you people can bash Sarah (and me) all you want. She'll never have to work again, and neither will I:) Who are the dummies??????

I'll post my 2112 Mercedes for ya. Would that be current enough? lmao

GermanGem - Your picture and your comments say it all. Blond jokes were written about you.

Nice one, kim. And GermanGem, you'll "never have to work again?" Are you collecting welfare???

lol kim:) I don't mind. I'm having more fun too:)

and btw, 7 medical doctors in my family (2 are my sisters) , so there must be SOME smart genes lol

welfare?, no I'm not an Obama voter lol

I'm surprised that so many are taking shots at Governor Sarah Palin. So there is a double standard. Sandra Fluke sleeps around and needs help to pay for Trojans and we all know that, she testified in front of Congress. Governor Sarah Palin was the Governor of Alaska, married and is raising a family.

Before you trash people think about it first. The only thing that Governor Palin is guilty of is being prosecuted by liberals.

German Gem

says mountains you have to brag about others in your family....

btw - "there must be some smart genes"......not in all families and you appear to be the exception in yours!

Smokie

"fluke sleeps around"..."we all know that"......show a link that proves "she sleeps around" that she is with more then one partner! you know sh*t!

btw - do you really want to discuss Trojans? Maybe Bristol Palin could have tried a pack? Now do we all know "she slept around"?

And somehow the article was about mining an area that is the largest salmon fishery in the world. Odd. Guess there are those people who are absolutely obsessed with Palin. Imagine they secretly lust for her and are ashamed to admit it. Go ahead, admit it, you really, really want to have sex with Sarah Palin.

How will you feel if she is voted Vice President????

Umm, she isn't running for office anywhere and not one person has picked her to be a running mate so what is your point? What is this peculiar fixation with Palin? Obsession, perhaps? What does that have to do with a gold mine in Alaska?

hey, I think sarah would make a good neighbor, but like most neighbors, she would make a terrible president

Sarah Palijn is controllin' Barhack Obamers mind and makin him suck.

GermanGem - You must be the exception to that smart gene in your family. How did you manage to get your hands on a Mercedes - Sugar Daddy?

WHy the juvenile personal atttacks, guys and women?

Toasty - referrring to the President by other than his real name is akin to wearing a sign that says, "Anything I might post is absolutely irrrelevant as I am not up to adult discourse." I hope that's the efffedct you were trying for. It's what you achieved. I guesss this is the right board for it, though.

The gene pool needs more chlorine!

referrring to the President by other than his real name is akin to wearing a sign that says, "Anything I might post is absolutely irrrelevant as I am not up to adult discourse."

Ronald Hussein Reagan - Have you read your screen name?

GermGem, please tell me more about how awesome you are, (Me, me ,me, I, I, I)....wait, this is an enviromental argument.

Skup - a reaction to the blizzzard of Hussein Obama posts. In other words it was a concise way of saying what my post said about the Obama permutations. I just got to the point where I aid, Enough is Enuf.: SOrrry.

Hmm, you put forward an interesting argument, Toasty.

And for the record, I think you have one of the best screen names on Newsvine, RHR. Cracks me up every time.

The really sad thing is that I doubt seriously in this society would we even realize it then.

I'm with you. its amazing to me that so many people think they can improve the world by distroying it

Well said.

The mines will still be there, and it will still be there for decades to come. However, once an environment got destroy, it will not be lost for ever and what recover is a poor substitute of what once was.

Who got the most benefit from this? Not us tax payers, when accidents happen, we will pay for all this again.

That's great there David...

Now since Alaska gets $1.84 back for each dollar sent to Washington - will you give us your plan when we can expect to see you send back the extra $.84 per dollar?

As I recall, Washington was part and party to that plan. I think it is a little late to argue the details.

b dune,

Good reply. LMAO

You clearly can't argue the details in a logical or informed way. Alaska is a STATE not a sovereign nation which means everyone in the U.S. has a say in what happens to Alaska's natural resources. This is consistent with the U.S. Constitution, which I'll bet you are quick to fight for. You argue for independence on how the state is managed, and then blame the Federal government for giving AK $1.84 on the dollar sent to Washington -- $1.84 on the dollar needed to run the state in a way consistent with the values and laws of the entire country. BTW, I'll bet your Legislators had no small hand in getting that money appropriated. That's called representative government and the money gap is called a subsidy which is similar to what you might call welfare. And what you advocate is called biting the hand that feeds you. How pathetic and unappreciative. Why do you live in a place that you want to destroy?

David

No one is interested in the "details" when your azz is left hanging out behind the woodshed!

Take the mine, the hell with the fish and when you run out of them you can eat your frekin gold.

Thats what I love about greed. Live for today and the hell with the grandkids, enviroment, etc. etc.

Take the BP oil spill. The gov recieved $20 billion. Just over half was handed out of which some went to companies and people that didn't loose anything. Think they would have donated a few dredges to start rebuilding barrier protection along the entire gulf coast. Nope! Think they removed the oil, nope, they sprayed chemicals to sink it. Wow it dissapered.

Force them to create a better enviroment before they abuse it then leave you with the baggage and take off with the gold.

Ok Alaska bashers who live in other states. Alaska is still a young state, vastly under developed. The feds have over half of the state locked up as federal land. Now while your interstate highway system was being built with federal dollars, we had a road built during WW II by the Army just to gain access. Now I have a question to you. Name 5 cities in the lower 48, not on an island, that you can't drive to? I can name dozens of towns and villages in Alaska that have no road access. We have limited infrastructure, you gonna blame that on us too. Trans-Alaska Pipeline has been pumping money into the federal coffers for 30 + years. You wanna trade tit for tat. go right ahead.

hang in there onermailliw, theres a brutal group on this site right now, maybe they're mad they don't have a date tonight lol

guess you don't either eh German?

b dune

That's great there David...

Now since Alaska gets $1.84 back for each dollar sent to Washington - will you give us your plan when we can expect to see you send back the extra $.84 per dollar?

Don't blame Alaskans, those expenses are mostly tied up in the vast federally owned parks. The federal government has no business owning land in the first place.

cmash

You clearly can't argue the details in a logical or informed way. Alaska is a STATE not a sovereign nation which means everyone in the U.S. has a say in what happens to Alaska's natural resources.

Another pro-big government liberal who doesn't even know the meaning of STATES' RIGHTS.

DeVille states don't have rights, Go look at the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence. Show me where it says that states have any rights at all.......

B-dune.....Most of that $1.84 goes to the military bases and to the National Parks and wildlife system. Do you want an area the size of 1/5th united states and located in a very strategic area to be without a military base? Do you want to get rid of over half of the National Park system?

Nice try Daville...but wrong!

DeVille states don't have rights, Go look at the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence. Show me where it says that states have any rights at all.......

The 10th Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

I would say that should pretty well rebut your theory of the States not having any rights.

This mine is about making as much money as possible, with the least amount of responsibility to the environment or the future, for the right now greed of as few people as possible. If TPTB want approval for this project, let them come up with a plan that will limit the odds of disaster to the environment.

Even with the multiple redundant safety systems built into something like the space shuttle, accidents can and do happen. Plan ahead for disasters and build the systems accordingly. If there is that much money to be made in the mining, why try to take shortcuts just to maximize someones need for instant gratification? Greed leads to nothing but problems for someone else. Put the proper safeguards in place and proceed responsibly and there wouldn't be a big uproar over the issues.

This can end up being a win-win situation or it can end up like most of big corporations BS where the risk is passed to the public while the profits are only for the private elite. Greed is still greed no matter how many flags you try to wrap it in. Concern for the now does not excuse the lack of consideration for the future.

David - who pays for the inevitable cleanup of the disaster that this will cause?

Yup, AK is just being used by oil companies.

Sarah has beat up on big oil more than any other Republican in Alaska. But what would you know. If you lived here , you would know this.

Uh, another pigtard already has said that.

Sorry, this is state land we are talking about. Barry is too busy screwing up the rest of the country to be concerned about this. His buddies, the enviroMENTALists, are already here heading to court like they always do.

Good point, Ed. And what about tailing pond failure in the event of a tsunami, a flood, or poor construction???

So you are proud Alaskans bit*h and whine about the Federal Govt....then think they should brag because they are taking a plus $.84 from the rest of us US Citizens?

Yep - certainly something to brag about!

I hear you!

What streams are you talking about Rick.

5/19/10

What most People don't know, this Anti-Pebble Mine is funded & supported by a Wall Street Investor that owns a Hunting Lodge somewhat near the Pebble Mine Location.

This Wall Street Millionaire has pumped $Millions$ of Dollars to convince Alaskans to vote AGAINST Pebble Mine.

WHY would a Wall Street Investor be against a Mining Project ?

Why should any American EVER TRUST a Wall Street Millionaire ? They have Proven time after time again & again that They Can NOT be Trusted.

The "Fish Huggers" in Alaska are always stating Not In My BackYard & are against any development that doesn't benefit the Fishing Industry. SALMON is KING in Alaska & to Hell with everyone else.

Myself, I plan to watch the Permitting Process the decide IF Pebble Mine is a Positive or a Negative for

Alaska.

SPW in Soldotna,Alaska

The north U S had it's coal mine's all over, They dug deep, everyone around lost their water vein's. the mine's filled up with water.It took years but they had to come back and level those hill's of dirt. At least with the fracking it will only be bad water but a few earthquakes to go with them.

a business problem maybe we should look in the direction of the Obama administration and the EPA.

you mean that EPA that republican Nixon started?

You mean like Bisbee, AZ... and Butte, MT? I know. What're people so worried about...?

This is different. This is a Major Salmon Nursery for some of the healthiest wild Salmon there are. Once a Salmon Stream is gone, that Salmon Run is gone. The Salmon that are hatched there will only return to that stream to spawn.

British Petroleum claimed they were very safe and a few oversights in building the cement base and keeping a simple battery maintained led to one of the largest disasters in the Gulf. The Gulf will now be contaminated for decades.

I lived in Alaska for over twenty years don't preach to me. Yes man fails, so does nature (tell me exactly how much @!$%# was dumped in the ocean from the Japan tidal wave and I will give you a medal). The sky is always falling for you greenies but you always fail to realize the world is a cruel place and @!$%# happens. Mean while China is kicking our ass and we are overdrawn at the bank. Either you mortgage all of that "Hope and Change" or put up some cash, cause its time to pay the piper for all of your feel good programs.

Shove it up your Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepublican ace...hey...heres an idea that you slugs may not have thoght of...but wait!! Oh that's right.....Trailer Trash Palin and her mental hubby has.....REMOVE YOUR STATE FROM THE UNION OF THE USA...and so can Utah...Idaho...Misippi...Bamy...Wyomin...and so on...you know...the educated states! Hahahaaa...yeah right.

Go listen some ore to the wack job Teddy "I don't do drugs" Nuggent....oh but wait!!! Wacko crapped his pants and did drugs so he could dodge the draft. Freak'n hypocrites!

Here's the passage from his book, Dreams from My Father, where he discusses his drug use:
"I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.

Actually, you f'ing moron...the profit would be in the low Billions of $'s. NONE of which YOU would ever touch....nor would any Alaskan. But that isn't the issue here.

There has NEVER been a SINGLE mining operation in Alaska that didn't completely destroy...permanently, the local salmon estuaries. Maybe not such a big deal if they were small, insignificant streams & rivers...But that's not the case here.

The Bristol Bay salmon industry is a 100% sustainable, all-natural, industry which has produced roughly 10 million fish per year for at least 70 years...and TONS of great jobs and support industries.

In addition, Bristol Bay produces 95% of the WORLD's Red Salmon... Alaska is the ONLY place in the world that produces them essentially...over 98% of the total. These minerals aren't going anywhere...figure out a better way to extract them in the future and they'll still be there. I'm sure you are really excited to put a few Billion $'s into the hands of some uber-wealthy fat-cats who would spit in your face & laugh at your loser-dom if they could be bothered, but this is a very unique situation and would utterly destroy a one-of-a-kind eco-system. Not 1 in million or 10,000....but 100% - even without dam failure, etc... the toxic stuff used in mining ALWAYS seeps into the surrounding waterways - there has NEVER been an exception ANYWHERE in Alaska...even really small operations. 100% of the time...not @!$%#ting you.