PDA

View Full Version : Supreme court allows gold mine to dump 4.5 million tons of slurry into Alaskan lake




BenIsForRon
06-23-2009, 02:00 AM
Not cool, this is guaranteed to kill almost all the fish in the lake, as well as other wildlife. This sets a terrible precedent, and could allow our lakes and streams to be used as dumps well into the future.

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/2009/supreme-court-clears-way-for-mining-company-to-destroy-alaskan-lake.html

tremendoustie
06-23-2009, 02:10 AM
Not cool, this is guaranteed to kill almost all the fish in the lake, as well as other wildlife. This sets a terrible precedent, and could allow our lakes and streams to be used as dumps well into the future.

[/URL][URL]http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/2009/supreme-court-clears-way-for-mining-company-to-destroy-alaskan-lake.html (http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/2009/supreme-court-clears-way-for-mining-company-to-destroy-alaskan-lake.html)


I'm with ya -- if they don't own the lake as well as all affected waterways, they have no right to dump there. They should be liable for all damages.

FunkBuddha
06-23-2009, 04:40 AM
I'm with ya -- if they don't own the lake as well as all affected waterways, they have no right to dump there. They should be liable for all damages.

Liable to who? The public just told them they could dump it in there.

Objectivist
06-23-2009, 04:59 AM
Interesting,
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7015572180

ItsTime
06-23-2009, 05:05 AM
Liable to who? The public just told them they could dump it in there.

The state also say you can travel 65 mph down the highway. But if you hit me and damage my property I can sue you.

So yes they can dump in the water, but if that dumping spreads to private property and damages it they can be sued.

Objectivist
06-23-2009, 05:09 AM
Earth Juice-tis is nothing but a bunch of hack lawyers making money off of Joe Taxpayer by filing lawsuits in liberaland 9th Circuit, where they get paid either way by us.

And does anyone wonder why the Ph.D in Ecology-Founder from Greenpeace left for better things? Lawyers took over GP too and it sickened him

Kludge
06-23-2009, 05:11 AM
Government had control of the property and can do with it as it pleases (I'm assuming the mine slurry will not seep pollution into others' property and cause any significant impact). I'm surprised and dully impressed the gov't is using it for something productive.

Choosing which business can use it is the more concerning ethical question involved, IMO. Gov't should not own land.

BenIsForRon
06-23-2009, 09:56 AM
Government had control of the property and can do with it as it pleases (I'm assuming the mine slurry will not seep pollution into others' property and cause any significant impact). I'm surprised and dully impressed the gov't is using it for something productive.

Choosing which business can use it is the more concerning ethical question involved, IMO. Gov't should not own land.

I don't think eliminating all life in a lake could be called productive at all. Don't forget about the elk and bears that drink from that lake too.

I'm sure our grandkids will be excited about that huge hole filled with sludge we left for them in the middle of the Alaska wilderness.

ARealConservative
06-23-2009, 09:58 AM
from what I understand, the lake will become larger, and more full of life when they are finished

Kludge
06-23-2009, 10:07 AM
I don't think eliminating all life in a lake could be called productive at all. Don't forget about the elk and bears that drink from that lake too.

I'm sure our grandkids will be excited about that huge hole filled with sludge we left for them in the middle of the Alaska wilderness.

Opportunity cost. Causing the death of thousands of animals is unpleasant, but the jobs it may sustain or create trump it. It does defeat the purpose of a National Forest, but it never should have been preserved in the first place.

What value do you believe elk or bear in that particular section of the Earth provides to humans that isn't already provided elsewhere?

VIDEODROME
06-23-2009, 10:10 AM
Fine. So why the problem opening up ANWR? Let's drill damnit.

dannno
06-23-2009, 10:23 AM
Liable to who? The public just told them they could dump it in there.

The public can't decide that destroying my property is ok, cause they live more than a few blocks away.. that's tyranny of the majority.

dannno
06-23-2009, 10:32 AM
Fine. So why the problem opening up ANWR? Let's drill damnit.

Lindsey Williams says that ANWR is the largest oil field on earth, and Henry Kissinger signed an agreement with the Saudis that we would not to drill in that area based on their secret oil agreement which denominated oil in dollars for OPEC, thus allowing the US to expand it's monetary supply at an extremely high rate, temporarily expanding the perceived wealth of the US for decades, by putting us into debt.

Lindsey Williams has gained credibility by predicting extremely high oil prices of a year ago (don't recall the exact figures and dates), and when oil was $143/barrel predicted that oil would drop down to under $50/barrel in a matter of months. He was right. He then predicated we would have cheap gas for about 6 months before the prices would begin to rise again and I believe he also said they would crash the economy again around this time. That's coming up real quick here.

But the point is the reason we aren't drilling there is because the elite have manipulated congress into not allowing it. Wasn't very hard, to be honest, except that they have to keep the whole 'biggest oil field' thing a secret so they don't realize that they are killing innocent human beings by not tapping into our own oil supply.

ChaosControl
06-23-2009, 11:16 AM
Disgusting.

paulitics
06-23-2009, 11:29 AM
Not cool, this is guaranteed to kill almost all the fish in the lake, as well as other wildlife. This sets a terrible precedent, and could allow our lakes and streams to be used as dumps well into the future.

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/2009/supreme-court-clears-way-for-mining-company-to-destroy-alaskan-lake.html

Don't worry about that, we have to stop global warming.

Zippyjuan
06-23-2009, 12:52 PM
Lindsey Williams says that ANWR is the largest oil field on earth, and Henry Kissinger signed an agreement with the Saudis that we would not to drill in that area based on their secret oil agreement which denominated oil in dollars for OPEC, thus allowing the US to expand it's monetary supply at an extremely high rate, temporarily expanding the perceived wealth of the US for decades, by putting us into debt.

Lindsey Williams has gained credibility by predicting extremely high oil prices of a year ago (don't recall the exact figures and dates), and when oil was $143/barrel predicted that oil would drop down to under $50/barrel in a matter of months. He was right. He then predicated we would have cheap gas for about 6 months before the prices would begin to rise again and I believe he also said they would crash the economy again around this time. That's coming up real quick here.

But the point is the reason we aren't drilling there is because the elite have manipulated congress into not allowing it. Wasn't very hard, to be honest, except that they have to keep the whole 'biggest oil field' thing a secret so they don't realize that they are killing innocent human beings by not tapping into our own oil supply.

Estimated recoverable reserves in ANWR are about 10- 12 billion barrels (depending on the price of oil). We consume about 7 billion a year right now. There is no evidence to support William's claims of the reserves there. He also said Gull Island (in part of Prudhoe Bay) has more oil than all of Saudi Arabia. Also wrong. The largest field in Saudi Arabia is over 200 miles long while Gull Island is less than one mile in area. He said the North Slope of Alaska ALSO had that much oil which would mean Alaska with more than twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia. All of Prudhoe Bay is not nearly big enough to hold that much oil. Williams said that $50 oil would bankrupt the Middle East- it went to $30 and they did not go bankrupt. That was supposed to come from oil "north of Russia" and Indonesia- both of which have seen their production go down, not up. Indonesia is a net importer- not exporter of oil.

He said Iran was becoming one of the richest countries in the world (which was supposedly one of the reasons the "elite" would bring oil down to $50 a barrel) while they are not even in the top 50% of all countries. He also said McCain would become president. Williams is a farce. He said "they" were going to kill him if he kept talking- but then he put out a new DVD and went around hawking it.

I have no objections to drilling in ANWR- it just won't make much difference if we do.

angelatc
06-23-2009, 12:57 PM
Your headline is misleading. The mine received permission from the government's Army Corps of Engineers, but the Government's Environmental Protection Agency wanted to override their decision.

This was government against government.

paulim
06-23-2009, 01:12 PM
Opportunity cost. Causing the death of thousands of animals is unpleasant, but the jobs it may sustain or create trump it. It does defeat the purpose of a National Forest, but it never should have been preserved in the first place.

What value do you believe elk or bear in that particular section of the Earth provides to humans that isn't already provided elsewhere?

If your post is ironical, maybe not my taste. If its sincere, I was right with my assessment that your philosophy is dangerously man centered. This will end with purposefull machines called instances of human beings, eating and shitting and nothing else.

dannno
06-23-2009, 01:31 PM
Estimated recoverable reserves in ANWR are about 10- 12 billion barrels (depending on the price of oil). We consume about 7 billion a year right now. There is no evidence to support William's claims of the reserves there.


I know, that's the entire point. If there was evidence, then congress would be stupid to not allow us to drill there because it is a relatively small area and would get us off middle eastern oil completely. You have to look at his entire argument, regarding Kissinger's secret deal with the Saudis to see why he is right. Of course I have no idea if the oil is there, but I tend to believe him based off this other information he has given.




Williams said that $50 oil would bankrupt the Middle East- it went to $30 and they did not go bankrupt.


One of the major reasons Iranians were protesting against Ahmadinijad, and I got this from the beginning when they first began, was that Ahmadinijad had destroyed their economy with 25% inflation. Mousavi was talking about this topic and how he would not be destroying wealth in his speeches to supporters.

Why do you think they needed to print money to create inflation? Oil revenue was down and they didn't want to cut spending or go bankrupt! Once again, Lindsey Williams nails it! Now we know exactly why they brought oil down so far, to mobilize the Iranian Revolution!





He also said McCain would become president.


No, he said that the oil barron wing of the elite WANTED McCain as President. They lost to the more globalist of the elite.

Zippyjuan
06-23-2009, 01:40 PM
Iran had high inflation both before the price of oil went to $140 and after it was below $50. The change in the price of oil did not change that fact. This from January 2008 (long before oil prices surged and well prior to Williams making his forcast) and they certainly were not in danger of becoming one of the richest countries on the planet as Williams also said:
http://www.newscentralasia.net/Articles-and-Reports/208.html

The election of Ahmadinejad in 2005 on a populist agenda promising to bring oil revenues to every family, reduce the poverty, improve living standards and tackle unemployment.

Now he is being challenged for his failure to meet those promises. Central Bank of Iran figures for November showed prices of basic commodities and services rising at a 19 percent while overall inflation is running at a 16.8 percent rate annually - double the pace it was when Ahmadinejad took office in 2005. But independent economists and experts put the inflation rate well above 30 percent.

The price of basic commodities has clearly jumped in many places in the last few months. Prices for fruit and vegetables have almost tripled in the past year in many shops, and housing prices in many neighborhoods have more than doubled since last summer thanks to his economic plan for Iranian nation, one of the reason behind this inflation is; the government increased liquidity, or the amount of money in circulation, flooding the market with too many newly printed bank notes (Some emphasize increasing interest rates by reducing the money supply through monetary policy to fight inflation ), relying too much on imported goods - including basic commodities - and using oil revenues to pay for the government's day-to-day expenses instead of distributing it to the people .

Inflation is a reality. If a fundamental solution is not found, Iranian are going to see harder days in the next two or three years. The source of inflation is the government itself. It needs to rectify its economic behavior in order to control inflation.

However, once inflation rises above certain levels, it can distort decision-making and can have negative effects on the economy and growth, which is visible in Iran.



I don't consider this any sort of predicted change by Williams. But if you choose to believe he is either an insider or prophet, that is of course up to you. He also said "they" planned Hurricane Katrina.

But this is getting off the original topic.

BenIsForRon
06-23-2009, 03:34 PM
Opportunity cost. Causing the death of thousands of animals is unpleasant, but the jobs it may sustain or create trump it. It does defeat the purpose of a National Forest, but it never should have been preserved in the first place.

What value do you believe elk or bear in that particular section of the Earth provides to humans that isn't already provided elsewhere?

The value is in maintaining the ecosystem that has been there for millinea, for us and our children. It is not worth destroying in order for a few hundred people to make money in the short term.


Your headline is misleading. The mine received permission from the government's Army Corps of Engineers, but the Government's Environmental Protection Agency wanted to override their decision.

This was government against government.

I see your point, I don't know all the ins and outs of the case, but I would hope that the Army's permit would be found to be invalid, but I guess they have jurisdiction over that area, sadly.

LibForestPaul
06-23-2009, 04:34 PM
n reviving a closed Alaska gold mine using a “froth flotation” tech
nique, petitioner Coeur Alaska, Inc., plans to dispose of the resulting
waste material, a rock and water mixture called “slurry,” by pumping
it into a nearby lake and then discharging purified lake water into a
downstream creek.


so, dumping rocks into a lake is "toxic wastewater slurry".


I concur with the ruling by Kennedy.
I concur with dumping rocks into a lake.
I disagree that this is an EPA or federal issue. Should be state.

Zippyjuan
06-23-2009, 11:01 PM
Mine tailings are not just rocks. They may contain toxic chemicals used to help seperate the gold from the base rock. Arsenic is one chemical often used. Cyanide is another along with mercury although that is mostly used in higher yield areas but it is used quite a bit in places like the Amazon. Many areas of the California Gold Rush are still contaminated.
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page68?oid=77988&sn=Detail
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2001/109-10/focus.html

Ore that has too little gold content to justify vat processing is piled in heaps over which a solution of water and about 250-500 ppm sodium cyanide is sprayed. As the cyanide drips through the heap, it attaches to particles of gold and forms a water-soluble gold-cyanide compound from which the gold is later extracted. The gold-laden cyanide solution is collected at the bottom of the heap, which is usually lined with plastic over a barrier such as clay.

Typically, the heaps are built and processed in layers, or "lifts," with new layers added when lower layers have surrendered most of their gold. When the heap grows too tall to manage, typically about 300 feet high, a new heap is started. By the time the gold mine is ready to close, it can have excavated a pit as much as a mile across and half a mile deep, leaving behind acres of processed ore heaps and hundreds of millions of tons of waste rock, overburden, and tailings.

"[Cyanide is] so impressive, I can see why metallurgists don't even want to talk about anything else," Miller says. "It's so incredibly effective at pulling gold. There are no alternatives to cyanide that even really come close, except in specialized circumstances."

tremendoustie
06-24-2009, 12:11 AM
Liable to who? The public just told them they could dump it in there.

"The public" didn't tell them anything, the bureaucrats did, who have no right to determine what actions will be allowed on other people's property (not that "the public" would either). If the bureaucrats want to donate their own land for slurry dumping, that's fine.

They should be liable to anyone whose property they damage.

Objectivist
06-24-2009, 03:14 AM
I don't think eliminating all life in a lake could be called productive at all. Don't forget about the elk and bears that drink from that lake too.

I'm sure our grandkids will be excited about that huge hole filled with sludge we left for them in the middle of the Alaska wilderness.

Nature does it all the time, do you want to stop that from happening too? Mt. St. Helens is a wonderful example of natures power. Was the lake manmade? If the Army Corps of ENgineers is involved one might be led to think so.
Just a thought.

Most eco-sites fail to give the complete truth in matters where they can extort money from us.