President Ronald Reagan had it right with his joke about the most terrifying words in the English language being, “Hi, I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
This may or may not true in the case of the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to study the Pebble Mine project. Opponents had pressed the EPA to veto the project under the Clean Water Act even though no permits have been filed by the Pebble Partnership. The EPA will study the Bristol Bay Watershed and says its study will look at broader issues of large-scale development in the region. The study would likely be the main tool the EPA uses when approving or rejecting future developmnent in the Bristol Bay area.
EPA intervention in Alaska’s affairs usually adds up to a stifling of our ability to develop our natural resources and a de facto taking of those resources through actions that coined the now popular term “federal overreaching.”
Offshore oil leases in the Beaufort Sea can’t be developed by Shell Oil due to a refusal to grant some permits. ConocoPhillips was recently denied a bridge on the Colville River needed to access and drill into its remote land.
And then there’s the question of drilling in ANWR, which makes knees jerk all over Washington, D.C.
The Pebble Mine, however, is a huge undertaking. It would be the largest open pit mine in North America. It sits near salmon spawning streams and the fish that breed there are crucial to the Bristol Bay fishing fleets.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s caution that any EPA review process must be “transparent and unbiased” and based upon science has much merit.
A fair and accurate study of the region should be welcomed by all sides in the Pebble issue, if for no other reason than it will provide more scientific data on the area.
That will only be the case if the EPA finds unbiased scientists to do the study — and that agency has a serious credibility problem among those who wish to actually develop natural resources.
Mining is a vital part of Alaska’s economy. Pebble could provide not just jobs, not just gold, but copper and molybdenum — essential minerals used in the manufacture of modern products.
As the world’s population grows and resources become scarce it is vital to our national interests that America provide for itself as much as possible the minerals it needs. Canada, China, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Russia and Mongolia are listed by the Mineral Information Institute as the leading molybdenum suppliers, although there are significant deposits in Colorado, New Mexico and Idaho as well. That mineral is used in many ways, including as an alloy bonded with steel to create high-heat products like furnace parts.
We shouldn’t allow a mine to be built in Alaska if it will poison Bristol Bay. We also shouldn’t slam the door on the project due to scientific unknowns. Perhaps the EPA can provide some answers.
That the EPA didn’t summarily move to stop the Pebble project is a sign that the agency may provide a serious and useful analysis of the Bristol Bay watershed. Here we’ll have to subscribe to the theory of positive pessimism, wherein we may expect the worst outcome but will be delighted should the best occur.

Comments (12)
Add commentbuying time
"That the EPA didn’t summarily move to stop the Pebble project is a sign that the agency may provide a serious and useful analysis of the Bristol Bay watershed."
BO is just attempting to appear "moderate" until after the 2012 elections.
After Nov. 2012 he will add these potential jobs to the long list of other jobs he has killed.
"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." - -- Ronald Reagan
Problems
Reagan was right, if your problem is not being able to rape the planet for every nickel it's worth.
With the current radiation crisis in Japan...
....poisoning fish (and you KNOW it is!) We should be very careful with our own fisheries...
"We shouldn’t allow a mine to be built in Alaska if it will poison Bristol Bay. We also shouldn’t slam the door on the project due to scientific unknowns."
Best line in the whole article.....
Juxtaposition
It OK to drill offshore as it will never be an environmental issue according to the Drill Babe Drill clan. Yet a mine in Bristol Bay will destroy the planet according to the same clan.
Its OK to develop the minerals and establish mines after a Road to Nome would be built as mines are good for the economy. But do not allow existing mines to expand as they will hurt the local area.
So which is it? I know its a take of on the NIMBY syndrome. When I need an area to exploit its OK; when you want to exploit the same area is unacceptable.
The EPA is not the problem is the politics we are seeing surrounding the entire fiasco. And for the most part the politics are connect to ones pocketbook. Those who fish Bristol Bay v those who would mine Bristol Bay. In either case its the money at the center of the mater.
Unbiased ha!
EPA administrator Lisa Jackson is an anti-mining activist that is incapable of being unbiased. She wont be satisfied until every mine in Alaska is closed- and most other industries too.
Today's news out of Washington DC is almost too amazing to believe, Jackson and former Justice Sandra Day O'Conner are holding a secret rally for anti-Pebble opponents in the US Supreme Court building.
See it for your self.
http://chrisabraham.com/2011/03/31/epa-administrator-lisa-jackson-to-att...
Jackson is a disgrace. Obama needs to get rid of her before she destroys all the EPA's remaining credibility
Was this editorial written by
Was this editorial written by somebody at the empire or the chamber of commerce? It's always great to trash the government. So who are we supposed to trust? a consultant hired by the pebble mine consortium? positive pessimism sounds like a good way to view all the empire editorials.
Why doesn't everyone learn some science...
...and that way when the EPA publishes the results of their studies, everyone can read it and critically analyze and comment on it? Some very basic math, statistics, sampling theory and protocols, and fundamentals of geography, geology, and salmon life-cycles would help quite a bit in reading that report, and allow intelligent commentary on it.
... Because science is HARD
If people learned to think critically, they'd have to confront their own assumptions and stupid behaviors. And we can't have that.
Also, science is only for those snooty liberal elites who spend their lives in ivory towers of reality.
Here to help...
“Hi, I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Would you be terrified when the Coast Guard pulls you out of the North Pacific?
Would you be terrified of the National Guard helping in an emergency?
Would you be terrified by the NOAA weather reports?
Just a few examples of what an ignorant, asinine and callous statement that is.
Alphabet soup
EPA DEC OSHA NOAA what ever Unfortunately too many cooks spoil the soup meaning this region and its people will not get the meaningful work a project could bring
In other words let them eat cake
Biased?
Starting off the editorial with a quote by Reagan isn't exactly unbiased either...here's a science fact: copper-zinc pollution prevents salmon from effectively spawning. In elevated levels its lethal to juveniles.
Well, that's the stupidest thing
I've ever seen you post, Cooter, and that's saying something. Are you even vaguely aware of the underlying implications of your statement? It says "If we apply science to analyse the potential consequences of a given development, it's going to show us that the proposed development or condition or process will be detrimental to some part of the system, whether it be water, fish, us, or all three (or whatever is appropriate from the context). But we don't want to look at that, so we'll pretend it doesn't exit and shut our eyes, because making money is far more important than anything else, even if it poisons people or irrevocably destroys something".
The other hole in your statement is the idea that science has nothing to do with development or jobs. Terrified of science? Fine. Then how will you cut timber using up-to-date machinery, analyze oil depth and drilling mechanics using software and computers, allow doctors to treat people with current methods, or pretty much anything else?