UAA Debate Team Banters Over Proposed Pebble Mine

By Margaret Bauman, Alaska Journal of Commerce, Anchorage

Apr. 6–A debate team from the University of Alaska Anchorage posed vigorous arguments for and against development of the Pebble project during an event held March 27 before a rapt audience of project supporters and the opposition.

“Let the government function as it is supposed to do,” argued Severin Randall, a junior majoring in philosophy, in support of the Pebble project. “The goal of government is to balance interests, what does the most good for the most people. Everyone presents their evidence and then the government must decide. There are some things so compelling that even a majority vote cannot decide.”

“We are talking about giving up a renewable resource for jewelry,” countered Jennifer Lucas-Duffy, a graduate student in psychology. “Let’s talk about how the mine will fail and why it matters if the mine fails. Pebble is on a fault line. The likelihood of an earthquake happening is great. Gold does not create life and it does not protect it. Fish are a renewable resource. Ultimately it will harm the people of Alaska and America.”

Randall and debate team partner Michaela Hernandez, a freshman philosophy major, argued the reasons why the mine should be allowed to proceed, while Lucas-Duffy, with partner Nick Byrne, a junior majoring in English, argued just as vigorously against it.

The award-winning debate team, joined by four university faculty members, attracted a cross-range of supporters and opponents of the mine at the event, organized by UAA’s Center for Advancing Faculty Excellence. It was facilitated by the center’s Libby Roderick.

By the end of the two-hour session, the audience seemed agreed on one thing: More discussions like this are needed to give Alaskans more information on the subject.

Development of the proposed Pebble project, located at the headwaters of the Bristol Bay watershed in Southwest Alaska, has become an increasingly hot topic as exploration continues.

Partners in the venture, Northern Dynasty Minerals, of Vancouver, British Columbia, and London-based mining major Anglo American, have said repeatedly that the copper, gold and molybdenum mine can be developed in harmony with the fisheries. They, along with other resource developers, say it will bring a flow of jobs and tax dollars to Alaska.

State mining officials have said that unless specific standards are met, they will not permit the project.

Mine opponents, including sport, subsistence and commercial fishermen, conservation groups, and some Pacific Northwest fisheries biologists, have said the mine would result in environmental disaster for the Bristol Bay watershed and the people and wildlife dependant on it.

Despite the heated discussion and print and broadcast advertisements paid for by both sides of the issue, there are still many Alaskans puzzled about what and where the project is. Many remain puzzled over the economic impacts the mine would have on the state, or the economic impact that commercial, sport and subsistence fisheries and hunting already have on Alaska.

“The people of Bristol Bay deserve jobs that pay a decent wage to support their families,” Hernandez said in her presentation. “We are not going to stand for irresponsible development. We can’t live our big life without the resources of extrication and development. We are here because of development and the role of the government is fundamental. We are here because of development. Let’s never forget that.”

Byrne countered with a question. “Are we really going to develop our state to death?”

Byrne agreed that both sides of the issue should have a say, but what Pebble has to offer comes at too great a cost.

“This is about the fish,” he said. “Fish is the point at which everything lies in sub-text. The people of Bristol Bay are not out-of-work miners waiting for a mine to come.”

Faculty member Jeff Welker, a structural ecologist by training and who is originally from Montana, told the audience that his former state suffered for resource extraction that was not handled well.

“Are we willing to pay the price to destroy something that has lasted tens of thousands of years?” he asked. “I would gladly sacrifice the gold in my wedding band for fresh water.”

Gunnar Knapp, a fisheries economist and researcher at the UAA Institute of Social and Economic Research, said he felt it is still too early to decide whether the mine should be built, but he was critical of the process designated to make that decision.

“I am quite concerned that the permitting process in place is inadequate,” Knapp said. “The process in place does not adequately allow for input for the people from the local area. We run a risk if we short change the process.”

Still, said Knapp, “I don’t trust a bunch of well-meaning government scientists (to answer the question of) is that the way we want to go with this beautiful wilderness area. I’d like to see the Legislature act to formally allow for significant public input and debate and a real process that represents us as Alaskans.”

Paul Ongtooguk, a UAA English professor raised in the Nome area, added another perspective. Ongtooguk said when he went to college he didn’t know about student loans or Alaska Native scholarships “because I was paying cash.” It was cash earned working on dredge 5 of the Alaska Gold Co. in Nome, he said.

“I have inside knowledge of the mining industry,” he said. “We knew well before any OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) people got off the plane when they were going to show up. Any good mining operation keeps track of that. We knew when they would show up and what they saw was not what we did the other six days of the week.

“On the other hand,” he added, “I was deeply grateful that I could pay cash when I went to the university.”

Ongtooguk also questioned the permitting process, pointing to examples of environmental damage caused by mining in other states, including South Dakota and Montana.

“A tribe in Montana is dealing with the Pegasus mine,” he said. “Their mountain was destroyed for temporary gain. They live with a permanently contaminated water system. I don’t understand it. It seems there should be a means of cleaning it up, but it hasn’t happened.

Pegasus, incorporated in Canada in 1973, pioneered heap leach techniques used to extract gold from ore bodies otherwise too poor to exploit for profit. Pegasus ultimately went bankrupt and the state of Montana reportedly ended up with a $33 million cleanup bill.

Margaret Bauman can be reached at margie.bauman@alaskajournal.com.

—–

To see more of the Alaska Journal of Commerce, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.alaskajournal.com.

Copyright (c) 2008, Alaska Journal of Commerce, Anchorage

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

AMEX:NAK,