I read with horror (and secret delight) a report that Robert Dickinson, Chairman of Northern Dynasty Minerals, the company seeking to develop the Pebble mine in Alaska, predicted that “opponents of North  America’s largest copper deposit and largest known gold accumulation will fail miserably in their efforts to stop development of Alaska’s Pebble project.” We all love a duel, and we all love an epic battle between strong fighters. I love watching WWE, boxing, and Eugene Onegin (Act 2), and their enduring popularity proves I am not alone in the animal delight that goes with seeing strong men beat up on one another. Seems to me Robert Dickinson has thrown down the gauntlet and set the stage for an epic duel. And we will all watch with bloody interest. 

The stage on which the duel will be fought and some of the protagonists are sketched in the remainder of the news report.  Here are extracts:

• Northern Dynasty considers Pebble the second-largest deposit of its kind, worth $200 billion. 
• State officials stressed that Pebble’s resources have not yet been proven to be economically minable.
• Pebble has generated opposition because of its location near rivers that feed into Bristol Bay’s salmon fisheries, one of the world’s largest sources of wild salmon.
• Dickinson insists that the project will not impact the fisheries of Alaska, saying that Bristol Bay is more than 100 miles from the Pebble project and has a huge watershed made up of seven to eight rivers. 
• Rep. Bryce Edgmon, D-Dillingham, introduced the Alaska Wild Salmon Act, stipulating that fish would come first, no matter what kind of development activity takes place in the Bristol Bay watershed.
• A bill introduced by Alaska Senate Majority Leader Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak would create the Jay Hammond State Game Refuge, which would encompass 5 million to 7 million acres of state land in the Bristol Bay headwaters. If the Stevens’ bill wins passage, it would eliminate storage of mine tailings.
• The citizens’ group Truth About Pebble, which supports the Pebble project, asserts that both pieces of legislation “are intended to stop the Pebble project before it even applies for permits under Alaska law.”
• Dickinson said the Renewable Resources Coalition (a group that opposes Pebble) “tried to influence both local and gubernatorial races during last year’s election and failed miserably.” 

You can see most of the submitals to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources on Pebble and other Alaskan mines at this link. On the positive side I recommend taking a look at the record of the Greens Creek Mine. I spent two summers there in the early 1980s looking for sites for the tailings impoundment. We were told that the mine would never fly. But it did; it is a success; and it proves you can mine in Alaska in places where the salmon swim.  (I recall with delight how Anita, she with the copper-color hair, would fish for salmon and halibut during the day and cook them fresh in beer batter for our evening meals when we returned from the wet forest and a day’s work.)  However, I do not recall bravado statements or vicious politics. We went humbly to the regulators and spoke softly in public meetings. Maybe the world has changed and now it is necessary to fight in the public arena with loud words to open a mine. 

The web is filled with opinion and counter-opinion on the wisdom of the Pebble Mine. Here is a true test of the philosophies of sustainable development, responsible mining, community relations, the limits of growth, ecological reserves, a better life-style for all, and yes, religious-based arguments about resource development and resource preservation. I cannot find anything intelligent on any of these topics applied to the mine. It’s all bold statement and political ducking. I suggest the Pebble Mine is a significant opportunity for the greater mining industry and those philosophers of mining theory (myself included) to come to grips with the clear clash of concepts and cultures that this mine embodies. 

My opinion, for what it is worth: before this mine goes ahead, the public at large and those who may be affected by it will have to be convinced of at least the following:

• The need for another copper mine to augment current and projected world needs.
• The need for more gold, here, there, and everywhere.
• The ability to develop the mine in a way that there will be no potential for releases that would impact the waters of Alaska or its salmon.  
• Proof that long-term water treatment will not be required once the mine shuts down.
• Financial mechanisms readily available to reclaim the mine so that the area returns to sustainable use in the long-term regardless of profit or the fortunes of nations. 
• A demonstration that mining is a better use of the land than hunting, fishing, and tourism. 
• Consensus that any decision is a rational socio-economic decision and not the result of bravado and/or politics. 

Clearly the process is going to test the efficacy of current environmental impact assessment regulations, the ability of the company to interact with regulators, the justice of the courts, the influence of the internet, and the power of interest groups.  And at the end maybe we will have a clearer philosophy of mining and resource development.