Letter: Pebble analysis failed to give a balanced picture of project

July 3, 2013 

Tim Bradner, on the proposed Pebble Mine (column, June 30), compares, as always, the costs of preserving what we have, salmon, against the benefits of developing something new, the world’s biggest open pit mine. Never does he mention the benefits of preservation, nor the costs of development. 

He reports the alleged tax benefits of the mine (according to a Pebble-commissioned study of a “hypothetical mine plan”), but not the state’s costs to provide the corporation roads, docks, and power, nor even regulation and enforcement costs to attempt to protect salmon from toxic spills. He discusses how some financial benefits of salmon go to out-of-state fishermen, without mentioning that most of the Pebble jobs would go to miners from out of state. He ignores state costs for these incoming workers (new schools, police and fire protection) and that they dilute our PFD checks and our fishing and hunting opportunities.

For nearly every other state, the costs of increasing populations are offset by increased income tax revenues — but not Alaska. Please provide more balanced economic analysis. 

— Pamela Brodie


Anchorage Daily News is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service