MINERS NEWS - National & International news from the hard rock, coal, heavy equipment, aggregates & mining industries

MINING WINS IN ALASKA: THE INITIATIVE PROCESS SUFFERS A GRUELING TEST

by Kathryn G. Arlen

Alaska’s state history may be short, but its contributions to the collective whole of this country are solid and worthy of both legend (thank you, Robert Service) and our present turbulent, teeth gnashing, “rock’m, sock ‘m” political climate (thank, you, Gov. Sarah.) Critical, trend-setting mining issues also merit special attention as Alaskan voters recently soundly defeated a statewide ballot initiative which could have set a negative precedent in the mining industry. Billed as a “clean water act,” “Four” (Initiative 4 on the ballot) would have added numerous excessive permitting requirements aimed at areas already extensively covered by both State and Federal regulations.

This was originally an issue about the potential of Pebble Mine, now exploring the world’s second largest copper deposit located approximately 200 miles SW of Anchorage but unfortunately closely positioned to Bristol Bay, home to the largest freshwater salmon fishery in the world. But this is also a story about people’s ability to gather information, debate, and hopefully make the best choice. Now that the dust has temporarily settled, Alaskan voters and the mining industry as a whole both realize how much more work needs to be done. “They will be back,” Joe Usibelli, Jr., CEO of Usibelli Coal Mine predicted.

“They” in this venue refers to any mining development opponents, ranging from extreme environmental activists to specific personal or corporate business interests, a scenario many “Four” opponents suspected as the motivating force behind this recently defeated (August, 2008) statewide referendum. Millions of campaign dollars flowed into both sides of this statewide debate, rivaling expenditures from our last gubernatorial election. Critical cultural, sociological, economic, and legal issues could not escape inclusion. And perhaps even more rewarding and revealing, the curious face of political bipartisanship raised its tentative head.

“Four” addressed the possibility of excessive toxic chemical release into the waters of Bristol Bay’s world-class fisheries as the Pebble mine project develops the world’s second largest copper deposit. But mining supporters repeatedly emphasized that all necessary precautions are already in place, and implementation of “Four” as law would lead to excessive, critical costly judicial debates and time-consuming interpretive reviews, possible shutting down metallic mining in the state. Quoted in the New York Times, Pebble Partnership’s CEO John Shively wryly observed, “Perhaps it was God who put these two great resources right next to each other, just to see what people would do with them.” Copper/gold vs. fish/ water. Did that perceived either/or choice ever really exist?

Research question: What did Initiative Four’s defeat mean to the mining industry in both Alaska and throughout the rest of the country?

“I think it’s been a real eye opener for us as an industry in mining,” offered Delbert Parr, environmental manager for Fort Knox gold mine near Fairbanks. “I think what came out in this initiative is that people are not knowledgeable about the permitting process, how it works, and how extensive it really is.”

Balance and clarity were other issues current campaigning politicians stressed. John Brown (D), running for the Alaska State House, analyzed the characteristics of public referendum, or initiative, as a viable law-making method: “We have to be balanced. In my mind this was more regulation than law. Regulations, I believe, should be done in a public process by professionals.” Ethan Berkowitz (D), in the race against Alaska’s lone congressman, Don Young (R) agreed: “I don’t like using the initiative process when it comes to allocating state assets, including when it comes to decisions about how we’re going to deal with resource management and resource allocation.

“We shouldn’t have bumper-sticker driven resource debate in Alaska,” Berkowitz elaborated. “We need to have a rational strategy for developing resources. We need to have some very clear rules, because clarity is important for a sound investment in environment…If we’re going to have any kind of rational discussion about any issue in politic-based action, you‘ve got to have reality based discussion. We can get a lot more achieved when there’s a consensus of how we perceive mining projects.”

Brown offered additional analysis about initiative reliability: “It’s really a tough issue. People do have the right to take on the legislature when they won’t or don’t address an issue that’s important to them, or pass a law they don’t agree with. We have to have that process in order to have a true democracy, and it’s a good process.” A process that can serve as either tool or weapon, as Parr further explained:

“I think it’s really inappropriate where you’re dealing with very complex scientific issues because it’s so difficult for the general public to get information that they can make a decision with. With measure “Four,” you have the mining interests out there saying one thing, and opponents saying another. And the person who is not knowledgeable about the issues—how do they know who is right and really giving them good information?”

But all things considered, even the realization that at least here in Alaska the state legislature can overturn referendum legislation after two years, one critical factor emerged: “Whenever something targets this industry, what is most important is how we react to it, what we do,” Usibelli declared. “Above all, in how we as an industry respond, we must be proactive.”

“We need to take control of our own destiny and take charge of our own resources.”

---Brown.

“We’ve got to do a better job, we’ve got to get proactive in educating the public on the more specific issues related to mining and the permitting process.”---Parr.

“Alaska cannot continue to be treated as a colony. We need to do a better job of making sure that large enterprises are working with Alaskans, that’s the way to grow this economy.” ---Berkowitz.

And as an appropriate conclusion, Usibelli shared one of his personal favorite quotations: “The best way to predict the future is to create it.”

Kathryn G. Arlen is a freelance writer and communication consultant in Fairbanks, Alaska. She can be reached at mindmerger@hotmail.com.