Pebble’s permitting process is proper

Rich Borden’s recent op-ed regurgitating the Natural Resources Defense Council’s, or NRDC, rhetoric against the federal review process of the Pebble Project is biased and demonstrates NRDC’s anti-development posture. There are a few facts worth noting.

First, in his opinion piece, Borden did not disclose that he has served as a paid consultant for the NRDC as part of their efforts to stop Pebble. He has written against Pebble in publications like the ADN, he has testified in front of Congress opposing Pebble, and he has submitted papers objecting to the project to the federal agencies reviewing Pebble. All this without taking a moment to mention his anti-Pebble work for the NRDC, a well-known national environmental activist organization opposing the project and opposing all resource projects in Alaska. Credit E&E News for noting his NRDC work in their recent article about the future of the project.

Second, while Borden lists his work as a specialist in the environmental aspects of the mining industry, there is nothing in his résumé to suggest a background sufficient to assess the economic feasibility of mining projects. Yet this is where he spends most of his public time criticizing the Pebble Project, and much of what he has written is flawed. Simply put, he does not have the credentials to make a declarative statement about the viability of Pebble. If the Pebble Project is not feasible — economic — as presented and influenced by the Army Corps of Engineers environmental impact statement process, it will not go forward.

Third, and perhaps most egregious, given his background in the industry, one would have assumed he may have reached out to the proponents to more comprehensively understand the technical and other aspects of the Pebble proposal. He has never sought a call or a meeting to learn more about the project. If he had done so, he would have realized that, within his specific area of expertise — environment and permitting — the data supporting the process and the design for the project set new bars for responsible mineral development.

Borden’s most recent op-ed seems written just for a headline that says the federal review process for Pebble is somehow “flawed.” However, the entire piece is essentially opinion with no evidence to support his claim. This notion of a “flawed process” has been a key NRDC talking point since before the draft Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS, for Pebble was published.

As others have opined previously on these pages, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers review of the Pebble Projects is working exactly as designed. The Corps of Engineers published a draft EIS in the spring of 2019. It received voluminous comments about that document from a range of stakeholders, including federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Corps of Engineers has been working with the federal, state, local and tribal cooperating agencies to review and act upon all comments received. They anticipate issuing a final EIS about Pebble sometime later this year. The draft said a mine could be developed without harming the fishery, and if the final concludes the same, then the project should be allowed to advance.

Recall that the NRDC opposes all resource development activity in Alaska. They do not support mining, oil and gas development or timber harvests. They are a no on responsible development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They are a no on responsible oil and gas development in outer continental shelf. They are no for responsible timber harvests in the Tongass. A quick review of their material demonstrates this:

• The Trump administration is rushing forward with a reckless plan to begin oil and gas lease sales within the refuge’s coastal plain.
• NRDC has been fighting a decades-long battle to defend the Tongass.
• Aggressively pursuing strategies to stop fossil fuel development in America’s largest public reserve in the Western Arctic.

The NRDC essentially opposes the building blocks of Alaska’s economy. So, when you read Borden’s attack piece about Pebble, ask yourself whose interest is really being served.

I have spent most of Alaska residence — 1981–present — working in and around Alaska’s mining industry. I have experienced the positive contributions responsible mining makes to our economy. The industry and regulators have high standards and good processes for reviewing potential resource and mining projects. Pebble is on state land and is an Alaska asset that should be fully vetted.

Richard Hughes is a registered professional mining engineer in the state of Alaska with 60 years of minerals industry experience, with 38 of those years spent in Alaska. He has held senior positions in mining operations and projects, served six years as Minerals Development Specialist for the state Department of Community, Commerce and Economic Development, and has taught mining engineering classes at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. He currently provides consulting services to the mining industry. He was a plaintiff in a 2014 lawsuit that sought to keep the “Bristol Bay Forever” ballot initiative — which required legislative approval of mines like the Pebble Project — from being put before voters.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.