Hi Folks,
I am curious if anyone lives near a large scale mine, what are your thoughts of thier exsistance. Has it been an economic windfall or a enviromental disaster?
The reason I ask if that there is a proposed large scale mine at the headwaters of the river that my community is located.

It is reported to be the largest and richest copper/gold mine in North America.

The river supports among the largest salmon runs in the world. And the richest commercial salmon fishery in the world. Fishing is the soul industry in the region and people are concerned over the impact of a massive pit mine, that would potentially use cyanide leaching tecniques at the very head waters of the river that supports literally millions of salmon and equivalent numbers of other fish species. There are 4 communities total on the river in a fairly remote area. All of them rely on the river for thier drinking water, and subsistence uses. Meaning that a large portion of the local population eat primarily fish and game harvested from the river and its banks.

There is a ton of propaganda being thrown around from both sides. I am looking for an objective view from people who live in proximity to large mines, that are still in operations or have shut down operations in the last 30 years or so. Thanks for any replies.

We have several small, medium, and large-scale mines in CO.

We're still dealing with arsenic and heavy metals from mines started 150 years ago.

I understand the necessity, but there are cleaner ways to do it. Plus, what about the volumes of metal buried in our landfills?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Typically it is both.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Pram, do you know anything about the permitting process in CO? I drove through there in August and was able to see a few. My concern is not the small mines so much as it is the mega pits. I have been trying to educate myself objectively about this proposed project. It is going to be run by two foreign companies, the larger one is mineral giant Anglo-American which has a horrific human and enviromental track record in Africa and other places.
The permitting process seems to be a joke to me though. Once the mine is in place there is little in reality of recourse communities and individuals have.

Honestly, I don't know much. I do know some people who have worked on the technical side of mining, but I don't know that they did much on the licensing side.

I suspect the law (at least in CO) heavily favors the mineral owners. But, we're such an outdoorsy place here that there arent' a whole lot of huge strip/open-pit type mines (no coal here anyway). We have a fair number of deep gold mines, though, and the usual gravel pits and the like.

Sorry I can't be more help.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

No worries, and thanks for the info. Honestly, I am not a real big enviromentalist. I dont mind gravel pits, and small scale gold mines, or even large mines that arent in such a critical habitat. As you probably know, Alaska is home to everything big except our population.

Our previous Governor, Frank Murkowski actually moved the habitat division from the Department of Fish and Game to the Department of Natural Resources. That is like putting the fox in the hen house. The laws have largely tipped towards the mining industry.

The mine is overwhelmingly opposed in the region and mostly opposed throughout the state. There is now ballot measure petitions circulating that would put signifigant hurdles in front of the proposal as it should. But ultimately, all it would do is to overturn a decision by former Gov. Murkowski to go back to not having "mixing zones" in salmon habitat. Mixing zones basically allow for mine waste to be dumped into salmon spawning habitat. I am glad he lost his own parties primary. Our current Governor Palin, is quite popular but seems apprehensive about really shaking this out. She is quite possibly the best looking Governor in the nation.

I don’t believe my experience is going be of much help, but since you asked...

I used to hunt in PA’s coal region. I remember hearing about the ecological/environmental damage from strip mines when I was growing up. Seeing those strip mines was the first sign that I was getting close to camp. I’m sure the mines were horrible for wildlife while they were active, and for a few years afterwards, but it wasn’t long before brush grew up on the former mine sites; and the brush returned with a vengeance. It’s now 2 decades later, and many parts are still too thick to move thru. Needless to say, along with the brush, the wildlife returned, and their populations there are as strong now as they’ve ever been.

On the other hand, a fire started in an old underground coal mine in Centralia, PA in the early ‘60s that’s still burning today. It’s estimated that it could burn for another 250 years. Sudden land-shifts in the area have forced the entire town to be abandon, and virtually all residents were relocated.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

CYD,
Thanks for the response. It is often times quite surprising how quick vegetation comes back. Any idea what the water quality was in the surrounding area? My primary concern here is the impact on the water resources. Including any impact on the surrounding fish populations.
What the issue surrounds here is taking a non-renewable resource(metals) at the expense of a renewable one(salmon)

Sorry, I’m not much of a fisherman, but I'll give it a shot. I’m not sure about the strip mines, but I don’t believe there was any particular impact on the streams and rivers. As for the underground mines, there was a large creek I always thought was a river that’s known as the Red Moshannon. The entire valley the creek runs thru is coated with a reddish dust-like compound that comes from the stream’s mist, which has a high iron concentration from the old coal and clay mines. It actually looks rather striking. The water is acidic, so it’s bad for fish, but the cranberries are growing great. I’m not sure that that’s a particularly good measure though. The mines were opened in the early 1800's and closed, I believe, in the late 1800's / early 1900's, and the mines were extracting coal and clay, so I’m not sure if current mining practices for gold and copper would have an environmental impact that would be at all similar.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

Interesting, I looked up the river. We have plenty of wild cranberries and they are known to enjoy a higher acidic level. My biggest concern is what copper dust is known to do living organisms of all sizes. Namely though, it apparently has a very detrimental effect on the salmon in thier ability to find thier home waters for spawning. While it isnt %100 sure exactly how they do it, the general accepted way is by smell. Introducing copper dust to a watershed on the scale that is proposed could potentially mess up thier homing ability on a large scale.

Ultimatly, we have a large commercial salmon fishery. But most residents here live a more or less subsistence lifestyle. Granted we use modern methods, but we still consume the far majority of our meat from wild sources here locally. I havent purchased beef, pork(except bacon) or chicken in 2007 at all. Salmon, moose, birds(upland and waterfowl) and caribou are the main staples for me and most residents here. Messing up that resource literally takes food from our mouths.

I wouldn’t be surprised to hear it causing problems, but I would imagine there would also be an influx of people to man the mines, and the population growth alone might cause some of the problems that concern you. I wouldn’t think they would all be willing to live off the land as you have, which would mean more grocery stores and restaurants, hunting land being developed for housing, etc. Those who are pushing the plan may be thinking the increase in the local population and economy may offset the projected environmental impact.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

Well growth isnt really my concern. We are talking less than 8k people in an area of 51,000 square miles or roughly the size of Lousiana. Yes 8thousand is not a typo. There are only 8 thousand residents here.
We are in the upswing of a serious downturn in our salmon fishery. It began 10 years ago, and farmed salmon among other market conditions caused it.

Again though, it is on the upswing. My real conern is that the local population wont be the actual beneficiaries of the mine's exsistance. There isnt the work force here to support the mine. Many of them would live in urban areas and be flown out to work. This happens on the north slope where the oil is produced. People live in Anchorage or elsewhere and work 2 weeks on with one week off. While a few would get faily lucrative jobs, most will be left with having thier rivers damaged.

The mine is known as Pebble mine. Feel free to research it. There is plenty of info on the net about it. My ultimate concern is that the locals will get few of the jobs, and all of the pollution. One needs to only look at other rivers to know that large scale industrialization and salmon simply dont mix. The Columbia, Fraser, Snake, and Salmon rivers have all proved that.

In terms of added hunting and fishing pressure by locals, that would be inconsequential. There is literally plenty of fish to go around to anyone who wants it. I have a family of three. We catch 200 salmon, a single moose, a caribou, and 75 birds and we are set for the year. While there is plenty of work that goes into those efforts. But if another 250-500 people were to move into the region, the effect would be minimal. Again, imagine spreading 8,000 people in Lousiana and letting them try to live off the land. They could probably do it. Even 10k could without a terribly tough time. Salmon is our life blood. I had salmon for dinner tonight. Will probably have it again tomorrow. And a good chance for the next day. I cant imagine what I would do without being able to harvest those salmon. The cost of living here is quite high. Buying all of your meat from the grocery store is completely cost prohibitive. To give you a snapshot, hamburger is $4 a pound. Boneless skinless chicken breast is $9 a pound. Milk runs for 8.50$ a gallon. Gas is running at $4.96 a gallon. Pork chops run at $7 a pound. For me, bacon is a real treat at $5 for a package.

I currently live in Sudbury Ontario where there is a lot of underground copper mining. The biggest players are CVRD/Inco and Falconbridge/Xstrata (or vice-versa).

The refining process has been the most damaging here on the environment, killing all vegetation back in the '70s, but with today's technology and re-greening efforts, the vegetation has returned and is now sustaining itself. I wasn't here in the 1970's but there are still signs of the fallout.

As for wildlife, there is no shortage of deer, bears, etc..., even within city limits (pop. ~160,000) and the dozens of lakes, all within 15 minutes of town, have ample variety of species, with numbers growing all the time.

Perhaps an open pit mine would have a different impact on the environment, but I think that so long as the effort is made to limit the impact with the technology we have today, there should not be any real effect on the local wildlife.

Just my 2 cents of course, I'm not in the industry but I do notice the environmental effects first hand.

__________________
Two-thirds of the world's lawyers practice in the US

I've been around since "Buy American" meant "Made in the USA".