That’s the question facing voters in Southwest Alaska’s Lake & Peninsula Borough who last week passed a ballot resolution banning all large-scale resource extraction, including mining, “that would destroy or degrade salmon habitat”.

No-one is in doubt that the measure is aimed at one of the world’s most important prospective mines in the vicinity of Alaska’s Bristol Bay. Few people expect the community to triumph over the likes of Anglo American, commercial interests, and some Alaskan native corporations.

However, on November 7, Alaska’s Superior Court will begin proceedings to consider the constitutionality of the Lake & Peninsula Borough ordinance. It promises to be an interesting hearing.

See http://www.minesandcommunities.org/11260.

See also: South Africa mine a poor comparison for Pebble, http://www.adn.com/2011/10/02/2100315/south-africa-mine-a-poor-comparison.html.

If you have not already done so, please contact your MP, asking him or her to sign Early Day Motion (EDM) 1606 against the project.

See: http://www.call4.org/campaigns/help-protect-bristol-bay-alaska/.

Earthworks Action’s UK worker, Lucy Pearce, reports: “Interestingly, with signatories having just crept into double figures, Anglo American’s PR agency Edelman were in touch with Martin Horwood MP who had tabled the EDM, requesting a meeting. A sign that EDMs can have impact! The meeting took place, with Paul Henry from Anglo American (Pebble, Alaska), and Communications Manager Anji Hunter.”

Martin Horwood MP remains committed to standing up for the rights of indigenous people in Bristol Bay. He says: “With the clear majority of Bristol Bay residents opposing the mine, I’d really like to know why Anglo American CEO Cynthia Carroll is moving forward without community consent as required by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.”

The Pebble Partnership, which involves Northern Dynasty (in which Rio Tinto is a major shareholder) and Anglo American, wants to develop the controversial Pebble Mine near Bristol Bay, Alaska.

The CEO of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. told Bloomberg News March 8 it expects to divest its 50 percent stake in the Pebble mine prospect “anytime later this year or next year.”

“I could see it being either one of the diversified majors singly or a partnership of a major mining company and perhaps an Asian metals trading-slash-smelting company, like a Mitsubishi, Mitsui or Sumitomo, or even one of the Chinese groups,” Northern Dynasty CEO Ron Thiessen told Bloomberg.

Since the Feb. 23 release of a preliminary assessment of Pebble’s value conducted for Northern Dynasty that ruffled feathers with partner Anglo American Plc of London, the Vancouver-based junior mining company has been on an aggressive sales push touting the prospect.

See http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/042111/loc_ndls.shtml.

Faced with a large delegation opposing the Pebble project in Alaska, the company ensured that Native Alaskans who favour the project were also present, and company Chair Sir John Parker stressed differences of opinion in the state as justification for proceeding with studies to enable people to make decisions based on ‘facts’ rather than ‘fears’. He also took all questions and comments on the Pebble project in one go and offered one inadequate response to all, preventing any further discussion of the matter. Native Alaskan critics, pointing to a documented 80% opposition to the project in the area around Bristol Bay, whose pristine waters and salmon fishery would be threatened if mine development went ahead, asked what level opposition had to reach before Anglo American CEO Cynthia Carroll kept her promise not to go ahead with the project if a majority opposed it. This question was dodged.

More surprisingly, both the Chair and the CEO announced in their introductory remarks that the company would assist former miners in South Africa who are ill with silicosis and tuberculosis and who are suing the company for health care costs. Refusing to admit any liability, the company said that as a humanitarian gesture it would propose to the claimants’ lawyers that it would pay for existing claimants’ health care, as far as independent health checks establish that they are suffering from silicosis or silico-tuberculosis, until the court case is completed. This was apparently because of the company’s concern for the wellbeing of claimants in a case that has been dragging on since 2004. It may also have had something to do with a press conference held the day before in South Africa, which received massive coverage in the South African press and threatened to cast the company in a very unfavourable light; and with a letter to the company the day before that from British Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Avebury and others.

Challenged on the conduct of the company’s Cerrejon Coal joint venture with BHP Billiton and Xstrata, the Chair and the Chief Executive of Anglo American’s thermal coal operations were vacuous, asserting that community relocations were occurring according to international standards in the face of reports from the communities that they are not.

Chairman’s address

Sir John Parker began the AGM by thanking Nicky Oppenheimer, now retiring as a non-executive director, for his 43 years of service on the board. The Chair said that the legacy of Nicky’s grandfather Ernest Oppenheimer lives on. [Anglo American is insistent on presenting its history of profiting from apartheid as a lengthy, enlightened struggle to abolish apartheid and to forge the new South Africa. It is happy to take credit for its contribution to a post-apartheid legacy that has included the rise of a new Black moneyed class and the perpetuation of massive inequalities between rich and poor.]

The Chair then praised the heroism of Anglo American workers and management in Queensland, where metallurgical coal workers had helped in the rescue operations during the New Year floods, and in Chile, where help had been given in rescuing survivors of the 2010 earthquake and in rebuilding schools.

He spoke about improvements in mine safety and said it showed that the goal of zero harm is possible.

He talked about the company’s work on climate change and water scarcity. In addition to increasing production of coal, [which, when it is burnt, will of course make an enormous contribution to damaging climate change] the company is, he said, working on Carbon Capture and Storage, the use of platinum in clean fuel cell technologies, and the use of algae to produce sustainable fuels.

He also spoke about the company’s commitment to the UN Global Compact, the Extractives Industries Transparency Initiative, the Investment Climate Facility for Africa and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, and its new partnership with NGO International Alert.

Pebble project, Alaska

Jeweller Greg Valerio asked how the company would prevent the spread of controversy around the Pebble project to the company’s other projects, implying that the move among jewellers to boycott any gold produced at a future Pebble Mine may be widened. Several speakers pointed out that significant investors have pulled out of the Pebble project and that 80% of people in the Bristol Bay area oppose it. Native leader Bobby Andrew said that CEO Cynthia Carroll should honour her publicly made promise not to move forward with the project without the support of the Bristol Bay communities. Another speaker said that Section 404c of the Clean Water Act would close the project down. Bob Waldrop of the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association, representing most of the Bay’s commercial fishermen, asked whether Anglo American would pull out of the project if studies showed that it would have a damaging impact on salmon. Bonnie Gestring of US organisation Earthworks said that the Federal Government is assessing the appropriateness of the development and asked whether the company would honour its promise to abandon the project if there were damage to salmon.

Other speakers, from Native communities close to the site of the Pebble project, said that there were many people in the area who had not yet made a decision, and did not accept the right of others to speak for them. One said that it was irresponsible to circumvent due process because of opposition from jewellers from outside Alaska. This was a violation of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. Communities close to the possible mine site are economically depressed and want the right to control their own resources, and some favour mineral development. The Alaska Peninsula Corporation, involving five Native villages in the Bristol Bay region, takes the view that Section 404c of the Clean Water Act, which mine opponents hope may halt mine development, may also ban Native people from developing their own resources, and therefore violates their Indigenous rights. They believe that the National Environmental Policy Act will protect the salmon. They do not wish to swap salmon for mining but want to have all the information before making a decision for or against mining.

Sir John Parker, replying to all questions and comments in one go, said that the company was listening to people’s views. The company wants the project to enhance life in local communities. Alaskans are welcome to visit any of the company’s operations elsewhere, for instance in Chile, to see the way in which the company conducts its operations. Pebble is still an exploration project. No mine is planned yet. A pre-feasibility study is needed before the board could approve a mine plan. Pebble lies on land designated by the Alaskan government for mineral exploration and development. Alaska has protected 174 million acres, an area five and a half times the size of England. The Pebble project team is 75% Alaskan. The company wants to hire and train Alaskan people. They want the Alaskan people to judge the project on facts, not rhetoric or scaremongering. They are employing some of the best scientists in the world to establish the facts, and will give the Alaskan people, and not just the government, full access to their scientific findings and to the mine plan. There is a long process before any plan is approved. It needs to obtain sixty different kinds of permits from state and federal agencies. Fish and mining can coexist. Good examples are at the Red Dog, Fort Knox and Greens Creek mines. The Fraser River shows that fish and industrial activity need not threaten each other. This year, 35 million sockeye salmon returned to the river, despite the presence of largescale copper mining. The Pebble Partnership can design a mine which can bring benefits to all.

[Sir John did not refer to the precautionary principle. No mine can ever be failsafe. Bristol Bay’s waters are pristine. A single major spillage would end that. But it is clear that the company is not willing to accept the judgement of 80% of the people in the area, and will continue attempting to persuade them that its mine plans will be infallible.]

The Cerrejon coal mine, Colombia

Richard Solly, of Colombia Solidarity Campaign, spoke about community relocations around the Cerrejon mine in La Guajira, Colombia. Anglo American owns one third of the mine. Richard had met two weeks previously with representatives of Cerrejon Coal to learn about the company’s plans for mine expansion and the process of community consultation. He was concerned about how people could feel free to express opinions about the mine in the context of human rights abuses and impunity. Mine workers have suffered because of attacks on the mine by some armed groups, and critics of the mine have been threatened by others.

There is also concern about the existing relocation process for communities affected by current mining operations. Cerrejon Coal’s account of the process differs from the account given by the communities involved. They speak of divisions in the communities caused by the pressure to move quickly. The community of Roche has been split between those who have moved to the new site and those who want their concerns about economic security dealt with before they move. Economic projects are not yet in place and there is insufficient land in the new community for people to keep their cattle, so a move will lead to loss of livelihood. The company frequently cuts the electricity supply to the village and is threatening to close the school and the health centre as a way of pressuring residents to move. What was meant to be a collective relocation has degenerated into family by family removal. Families without title to their land will lose what they have without being provided with anything in the new settlement. The company has now stopped paying independent advisors, Indepaz, and the communities lack the advice they need.

What will Anglo American do to ensure that Cerrejon Coal improves its handling of the distressing process of relocation?

Sir John Parker stated that Anglo American worked closely with the other two shareholders, BHP Billiton and Xstrata. Mine management has worked to improve security. Head of Thermal Coal, Norman Mbazima, said that Anglo American does exert influence over Cerrejon’s operations. He said that relocations had been going on for some time. Some communities were moved before the current consortium took over, and remedial work had to be done. Discussions at Roche have taken place over several years and relocations will occur in accordance with international standards. The Independent Third Party Review will sign off with regard to communities still to move. He said that communities would have more land than they had before.

[If what Mr Mbazima says is true, then Cerrejon Coal has been spectacularly unsuccessful in communicating it to many villagers facing relocation. But it is also possible that Mr Mbazima has been misinformed. Accounts given by the company and by community representatives continue to diverge widely.]

South African former mineworkers with silicosis

Rachel Nkumanda spoke on behalf of Alpheos Blom, one of the former mineworkers suing the company for health care costs. She asked for confirmation of two points. The Chairman had suggested that changes in the exact nature of the claims being brought against the company would mean that they would take longer to resolve. Was this the case, and if so, does the company have no influence in this matter? And was the company really committing to a humanitarian response regarding the financial cost of medical help for the duration of the court process?

Sir John Parker repeated that the legal position had not changed but that the company had been influenced by the speech given at the 2010 AGM by Ms Nkumanda on behalf of Alpheos Blom, who was present on that occasion. The company had agreed on purely humanitarian grounds that Anglo American would offer to help the 24 individuals who had claimed to date. The company would pay for an independent medical check and would meet medical bills arising from it until the court cases were settled.

Other shareholders’ questions

In response to a lengthy question about acquisition strategy, the Chair said that few ‘transformational deals’ were available. The company had looked at Riversdale’s Mozambique operations but was not willing to pay what Rio Tinto paid for them, partly because of problems with transportation. The company was expanding its nickel operations and actively interested in copper deposits in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

A tribute to the Oppenheimer family led to a question about what might happen to the family’s shareholding in the company. The Chairman would not comment.

And finally, one shareholder called for better refreshments after AGMs, particularly the serving of wine from the company’s South African vineyard. There was more audible support for this than for protection of the waters of Bristol Bay, or the livelihoods of Colombian farmers, or the health of former mineworkers dying of silicosis in South Africa.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/21/coalition-to-save-bristol-bay.

Many jewellers continue to sign the pledge not to buy gold from Bristol Bay. See http://ourbristolbay.com/pledge-statement.html.

Lobbying for Pebble
If you’re curious to find out just how much the companies behind the Pebble Mine spent on lobbying the Alaska legislature, read this article ($378,000 to employ four of the professional lobbyists at the Capitol).
http://www.adn.com/2011/03/26/1777421/lobbying-is-big-business-in-juneau.html

The stakes are high. Southwest Alaska’s Pebble mine site holds the world’s largest undeveloped copper-gold-molybdenum deposit, while Bristol Bay supports the world’s largest remaining wild sockeye salmon runs, which produce roughly half of all the world’s commercial sockeye salmon.

See http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2011/2011-04-13-01.html.

See http://www.nrdc.org/naturesvoice/campaign1.asp.

Unfortunately, Bristol Bay is also home to the world’s largest wild sockeye salmon fishery. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said last week it would begin a scientific review of the watershed to assess how large-scale development would impact water quality and the fishery.

The Pebble project is a joint venture between Anglo American and Northern Dynasty (in which Rio Tinto is a major shareholder).

See http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2011/02/14/jeweler-opposition-bristol-bay-gold-grows.

The Pebble Mine project is being pursued by Anglo American and Northern Dynasty, in which Rio Tinto has an important stake.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/opinion/14mon3.html.

News from Earthworks Action (http://www.earthworksaction.org/home.cfm)

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said on Monday 7th February that it will “conduct a scientific assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed to better understand how future large-scale development projects may affect water quality and Bristol Bay’s salmon fishery.”  The agency said it is acting in response to petitions last year from nine Alaska Native tribes, commercial fishermen and others. See http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d96f984dfb3ff7718525735900400c29/8c1e5dd5d170ad99852578300067d3b3!OpenDocument.

The tribes and commercial fishing groups had asked the EPA to initiate a provision of the Clean Water Act known as Section 404 (c), which gives EPA the authority to restrict waste dumping in important waters of the United States. Since the Pebble mine would dump up to 10 billion tons of waste at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, invoking Section 404 (c) would have significant implications for the project. The EPA’s action on Monday does not go that far, but “represents EPA’s proactive steps to better understand the watershed and gather important scientific information.” said EPA Regional Administrator Dennis McLerran speaking to the Anchorage Daily News.

This significant move has been welcomed by local people and organisations:
- “We applaud the EPA for recognizing the importance of protecting the world’s most important wild salmon fishery, the basis of both a $400-million-a-year industry” said Bob Waldrop of the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association, which represents commercial fishermen. “We’re confident that this scientific review will show clearly why Bristol Bay should be protected by Section 404 (c).”
- Kim Williams, executive director of Nunamta Alukestai, Caretakers of the Land, in Dillingham, Alaska, called the EPA decision to conduct its own scientific assessment a positive step forward. “We are all trying to protect the salmon, the wildlife, the habitat that the fish, animals and birds rely on,” she said. “We feel the science will be there to support Bristol Bay.”

For more on this story see the Anchorage Daily News: http://www.adn.com/2011/02/07/1688653/epa-to-review-bristol-bay-projects.html.

December’s issue of National Geographic magazine features a beautiful photo story about Bristol Bay, the salmon fishery, and the proposed mine, ‘Alaska’s Choice: Salmon or Gold’.

See http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/bristol-bay/dobb-text.

See also Trial will address whether exploration of Pebble was legal at http://www.adn.com/2010/12/06/1590976/trial-questioning-legality-of.html.

Rio Tinto is a minority shareholder in Northern DynastyMinerals, also involved in the project.

See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/protest-at-anglos-alaskan-quest-2123518.html.

Tiffany & Co joins jewellers boycotting Alaskan gold mine

Jewellery retailers across the UK and US with combined sales of more than £3.5 billion have pledged to reject any gold from an Anglo American mine that threatens Alaska’s wild salmon industry.

Anglo American and its Canadian partner Northern Dynasty Minerals plan to excavate a gold and copper mine at the headwaters of Alaska’s Bristol Bay, which will involve an open pit with infrastructure stretching over 30 square miles and an 86 mile long access road.

Local campaigners say the mine will destroy one of the most valuable wild sockeye salmon runs on earth and generate up to 10 billion tonnes of contaminated mine waste. The tailings lakes (made up of waste rubble and fluids) alone would bury two valleys.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/03/mining-gold.

Tiffany & Co Hop in the Salmon Stream, Opposing Alaska’s Pebble Mine

Tiffany & Co joins Ben Bridge Jeweler, Helzberg Diamonds, and Alaskan fisherman in support of Bristol Bay Pledge against Pebble gold mine

See http://www.energydigital.com/sectors/mining-and-aggregates/tiffany-co-hop-salmon-stream-opposing-alaska-s-pebble-mine.

The Pebble project is owned 50% by Anglo American and 50% by Northern Dynasty, in which Rio Tinto has a share of nearly 20%.

See http://www.adn.com/2010/09/24/1469926/native-groups-fishermen-seek-to.html#ixzz10bc9kN1K.

The Pebble Mine operation, as it’s known, is located in the heart of the Bristol Bay watershed. In July 2007, Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. and London-based mining group Anglo American established the Pebble Partnership to permit, engineer, construct and operate a long-term copper and gold mine there. (Rio Tinto also has a minority stake in the project.)

See http://www.renewableresourcescoalition.org/newsroom/2010-07-08/copper-gold-and-salmon-toxic-concerns-surround-pebble-mine-project-in-alaskas-br.