Pebble criticisms lack context

It has become apparent that the Anchorage Daily News opinion page is becoming the way Pebble's opponents seek to communicate rather than visiting with us. I still believe we are all better served by meeting directly to address specific concerns and provide context about our plans. Although people may not like my answer, at least they will have the complete picture and understand my rationale. The recent op-ed about permitting for Pebble warrants correction and context.

I will begin with the issue of the tailings failure at Mount Polley in 2014. No one in Alaska wanted to know why that facility failed more than me. Shortly after the incident, I directed our team to learn as much as possible about what happened so we could ensure it would not happen at Pebble. I committed that prior to seeking a permit for our tailings storage facility, we would seek an independent review of our plan. That commitment stands, and prior to seeking authorizations from the Alaska Dam Safety Program, we will seek an independent review.

Simply put, this matter could have been cleared up with a five-minute phone call.
While we are disappointed that a potential new partner recently backed away from an option agreement in Pebble, we are actively engaged in conversations with potential new investors. We are confident we will have the financial resources to advance the project through permitting.

Specific to permitting, there are two key issues I want to address. First, we made minor modifications to the plan we submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. To be clear, these changes were given to the Corps on May 11th, not after the scoping comment window closed on June 29th. The gist of what we are proposing remains the same: a plan to mine the Pebble resource over the course of 20 years via an open pit; a transportation corridor with an icebreaking ferry; a port facility to load ships with mineral concentrate; and a natural gas pipeline to provide the needed energy to power our facilities. We further believe the changes we made also have significant environmental improvements and I encourage interested stakeholders to review what we have proposed.

Second, there was an attempt to disparage the quality of our technical work by calling normal requests for information "data gaps." The Corps has asked, and will continue to ask, for a range of technical information to help craft a comprehensive draft Environmental Impact Statement. These "Requests for Information" are normal and expected. Much of our current work is spent providing the Corps with information they need to complete this important document. Pebble has one of the most comprehensive environmental data sets for a mining project anywhere in the world, and any effort to discredit this work is simply not true. Further, calling this work insufficient is insulting to the Alaska-based technical consultants we commissioned to undertake it.

Our skin is thick, and for years we have been intensely criticized for not initiating permitting for our project. We took our time, on our schedule, in crafting what we believe is a responsible and responsive plan for this project. It is smaller, has a compact operational footprint outside of the Kvichak drainage and will not use cyanide for secondary gold recovery, to name a few enhancements. Now that we have initiated permitting, we find it ironic that the same critics want to stop this review process in its tracks. While we expect this type of process shenanigans from national environmental groups who do not like development in Alaska, it remains disappointing that our governor and a few vocal opponents want to stop the permitting process.

Our plan for Pebble is sound from an environmental, engineering and economic perspective. We are confident our project will do no harm to the Bristol Bay fishery. Our job now is to provide the technical detail the Corps needs to assess the validity and veracity of our work. This is exactly why there is a permitting and review process.

Pebble is on Alaska land and could be an important project for Alaska's future. We firmly believe that when it is demonstrated we can responsibly mine at Pebble and protect the robust Bristol Bay fishery, Alaskans will have a far different discussion about this prospect.

Tom Collier has been CEO of the Pebble Partnership since February 2014. Prior to Pebble, Collier had a distinguished 40-year legal career with a specialty for guiding companies through the federal environmental permitting process. Collier also worked as chief of staff to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.

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@adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser.