Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pebble Mine

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pebble Mine

    Looks like a win....for now


    https://www.npr.org/2018/01/28/58140...ed-protections
    We are the music-makers,
    And we are the dreamers of dreams,
    Wandering by lone sea-breakers
    And sitting by desolate streams;
    World losers and world forsakers,
    On whom the pale moon gleams.

  • #2
    I hope it remains that way.


    "Not every Soldier is a Joe"

    You can support the NGTO Mission Statement and Help Ease DNR's Budget Woes. Buy a TU License Plate!

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for Update, GU

      If anyone here thinks I have a "negative attitude" about poachers, ask me what I think of mines like this one ............

      Conservation, like democracy, requires constant a constant vigil and preparedness for action. These mining companies will continue the assault by any means at their disposal. The State of Alaska does not want this mine, the native peoples and other residents of the Bristol Bay area do not want it. So who wants it? A corporation not even based in Alaska and all they care about is extracting mineral wealth and then closing down in bankruptcy leaving us with the clean up. Same pattern has been repeated hundreds of times over and over again and still some people will not listen.

      Again, thanks for this ray of sunshine and we will all keep our eyes open! --johnkies--

      Comment


      • #4
        Great news.

        I wonder if those (not talking about anyone here) who were constantly bashing Scott Pruitt and the current Admin about this will now back off a bit, say something positive, or even just not compare him to Satan. The level of hyperbole in some of the articles is crazy. Hatch Magazine comes to mind, and I have engaged a couple of their contributors in discussion on FB after an article is posted, and they are way out there in their thinking.

        FM
        The tug is the drug!

        "Grow a pear!" - Groundpounder

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by fishmonger View Post
          Great news.

          I wonder if those (not talking about anyone here) who were constantly bashing Scott Pruitt and the current Admin about this will now back off a bit, say something positive, or even just not compare him to Satan. The level of hyperbole in some of the articles is crazy. Hatch Magazine comes to mind, and I have engaged a couple of their contributors in discussion on FB after an article is posted, and they are way out there in their thinking.

          FM
          Considering this is a reversal of a previous action by Pruitt and the reversal follows a report brought about by the leak of his super secret schedule showing a meeting with the pebble mine people's shortly before his first action, no I'm not willing to accept that Scottie did this out of the kindness of his heart.

          Comment


          • #6
            My understanding was that the EPA prior to Pruitt would not allow the company to go through the proper permitting process. All Pruitt had done was allow the company to submit its proposal for review, which was later rejected after the review. I don't think the mine makes sense economically and environmentally based off what I've read about it, but from the start it should have been allowed to go through the proper steps before being rejected.
            "The quintessence of learning is doing"-Mel Krieger

            Comment


            • #7
              Pruitt

              I will say nothing positive about Pruitt, nor will I say anything negative ... at this time. But with Pruitt in charge we all have to watch closely at what the EPA does and does not do. The EPA is a key component at the federal level in keeping our waters clean enough for trout to live in. Remember Pruitt came in on the swing of a government very much opposed to environmental rules and regulations as obstructions to business.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by EN 787 View Post
                My understanding was that the EPA prior to Pruitt would not allow the company to go through the proper permitting process. All Pruitt had done was allow the company to submit its proposal for review, which was later rejected after the review. I don't think the mine makes sense economically and environmentally based off what I've read about it, but from the start it should have been allowed to go through the proper steps before being rejected.
                The May, 2017 settlement allowed Pebble to start the process and as I understand it, it never got past the public comment phase. I have also read that Pebble Mine is actually still allowed to submit its permit applications. That said, not sure what point that would be if they're not going to be granted.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JOHNKIES View Post
                  But with Pruitt in charge we all have to watch closely at what the EPA does and does not do.
                  I think this could be said for all government past, present, and future.

                  I will add that the EPA over the past few years has relied on sue and settle as a way of regulation. One story that was not covered by many fishing/outdoor blogs was this story about a guy who owned a small ranch and stocked a man-made watering hole with trout. He got state and local approval but was later fine nearly $40,000 per day by the EPA under the Clean Water Act. He sued and the EPA settled by telling him he had to plant willow trees and limit livestock access to one part of the pond...

                  https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/u...ilys-pond.html
                  "The quintessence of learning is doing"-Mel Krieger

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JOHNKIES View Post
                    I will say nothing positive about Pruitt, nor will I say anything negative ... at this time. But with Pruitt in charge we all have to watch closely at what the EPA does and does not do. The EPA is a key component at the federal level in keeping our waters clean enough for trout to live in. Remember Pruitt came in on the swing of a government very much opposed to environmental rules and regulations as obstructions to business.
                    I would say he came in on the swing of a government very much opposed to UNREASONABLE rules and regulations as obstructions to business.

                    FM
                    The tug is the drug!

                    "Grow a pear!" - Groundpounder

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by fishmonger View Post
                      I would say he came in on the swing of a government very much opposed to UNREASONABLE rules and regulations as obstructions to business.

                      FM
                      Ok, so by that logic it sounds like they prefer to put business needs ahead of the environment. How has that worked out in the past? Businesses fail all the time but the environment is perpetually there longer than any business or person ever will be.
                      As Johnkies said judging him now is not the path. We need to see some time pass to get data but we also have data from previous governmental changes and with the nature of either being blue or red to build off of as well.
                      #JBNavy

                      "Everyday is a new life to a wise man."
                      -Chinese Proverb

                      “At sunrise everything is luminous but not clear.”
                      -Norman Maclean

                      "We are what we hunt."
                      -PH

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by fishmonger View Post
                        I would say he came in on the swing of a government very much opposed to UNREASONABLE rules and regulations as obstructions to business.

                        FM
                        There are many things that a business would consider unreasonable in the statutes that Pruitt is supposed to be enforcing but their and Pruitt's opinion on what is reasonable is irrelevant.

                        Also, it's not a good look when you have zero transparency (this very topic being a prime a example) no matter what you're trying to do. I didn't follow closely, but I don't recall the same lack of transparency in Obama's EPA and they were also doing controversial things. Also, despite constantly falling back on the rule of law (it's practically their only defense) he's been slapped for not even following the proper rule of law procedures. Oh and by the way, under the "rule of law" he is allowed to regulate greenhouse gases. Wonder why he doesn't.

                        There are many things to suggest that Pruitt is not merely rolling back that which he sees as unlawful.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X