43°

I must respond to Arliss Sturgulewski's April 24th letter in which she touts the rigor of the permitting process when it comes to large-scale mining, and in particular the Pebble Mine. While it is true, a large number of government agencies must approve the data, in reality it is a process that is severely flawed.

The first problem is that all baseline and environmental studies are done by companies hired by the very people who want to do the mining. If the Pebble Partnership doesn't like the results they can simply fire the consultant and hire another until they get the result they like. This does not make for good science, which should always be conducted in an open, unbiased and independent manner.

To make matters worse, the results of these studies are kept hidden until the last minute, when they are turned over to DNR and DEC, who are woefully under-funded and undermanned and currently headed by men with long ties to the mining industry.

The argument often raised concerning these studies is that state government doesn't have the money to pay for them. Why can't we demand that if these foreign companies want to do business in our state, they must still pay for the studies, but that they must be conducted by an independent state agency (not headed by a mining industry insider), who oversees the studies and who the consultants report to? This is the only way to avoid the current conflict of interest.

Ms. Sturgulewski goes on to say all mines are required to have financial assurances in place for reclamation. True, but studies show they are, in every case, underestimated, only covering between 25 to 80 percent of reclamation costs. The Government Accounting Office reports that between 1998 and 2007, taxpayers spent $2.6 billion on abandoned mines. There are currently 63 hard rock mining sites on the Superfund priority list.

The Pebble Mine, which would be the largest mine in North America, is a sulfide mine, which makes it even more likely to produce acid mine drainage. In fact, there are no examples of sulfide mines that have not contaminated the surrounding ground- and surface-water. And Pebble is planned for one of the wettest, most sensitive ecosystems on Earth, and at the headwaters of our richest fishery.

In closing Ms. Sturgulewski says she hopes at the end of the day people will recognize the facts. I do, too.

As the Pebble Partnership steps up their campaign for the hearts and minds of Alaskans, I hope everyone will do a little research. Look into the track record of Anglo American, the main player behind this effort. Look at the recent history of large-scale hard rock mining and see if you think ? in this instance, in this location, with all that is at risk ? this constitutes responsible development.

I think most reasonable Alaskans will see that now is the time to band together to protect our clean water and wild fisheries.

Dave Atcheson

Sterling