Replies

It’s actually not but I’m sure the statement

that the mine would cause “complete loss of” the bay’s fish habitat...

is a lie.

Actually it isn't a lie - effluent from the mine flowing down the rivers would kill most of the returning salmon and even if some manage to spawn the eggs would be poisoned and any surviving smolts would die. It would be the end of the largest salmon run in the world, not to mention the end of thousands of jobs and a way of life for thousands more. The salmon don't spawn in the Bay, they spawn in the rivers.

Since many are unfamiliar with the life cycle of salmon - here's a quick course:
Salmon (in this case, sockeye, which are "vegetarians") are born in the gravel beds of rivers, emerge and swim to a lake (Iliamna in his case) where they live until able to go down stream and into the ocean, then after four years, return to the same river they came from and spawn in the same area they emerged from, then die.

You can see from the image that the entire Iliamna drainage would be effected, and the later leases would effect Cook Inlet salmon.

Salmon are more important then minerals. Organic salmon is better than the heavily chemicalized farmed salmon. If you like farmed salmon with its generous helpings of antibiotics, food dye, copper oxide, copper hydroxide and cuprous thiocyanate, you'll love eating your canned minerals - best BBQed.

Need to check into more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_Mine

I came across this a month ago. I thought it was a rare earth’s project. Is rhenium and palladium rare earth minerals.

No doubt want this an alternative to China if so. There is a project proposed just west of San Antonio in Hondo TX that seems should be a first priority. That and Mountain Pass CA in Mojave desert just west of Las Vegas seems should be priorities 1 and 2.

Post mining processing is where impact of environment occurs. This impact is minimized with the CA and TX locations and should be prioritized as national security and moved on quickly and massively.

And I am not NEARLY knowledgeable enough to say “My God you’re right!”

I tend to believe what you said, but the amount of time I would have to put into reading both sides of this argument (even with your generous information given) would be too long as I dont have a personal stake.

I can say this, like I said in my FIRST post.

If it was true, then the FR poster was WRONG.

Minerals are NOT more important than completely wiping out the salmon population.

It’s that kind of thinking that makes us lose some votes.

BTW, thank you again for your great information.