Jump to content

Talk:Pebble Mine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

News

The "news" section at the end of this article has only two listed news references. Pebble Mine is a topic that has been covered extensively by all kinds of news media, and the coverage is ongoing. If this section isn't going to be made complete or current, I think it should be removed.

I disagree. If the News section is too small the remedy is to add to it, not eliminate it. Plazak (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Check

Currently this article is heavily slanted against the mine project.

Slanted statements should be left out of the proposal and location sections.

The "Arguments for the proposal" section should at least contain arguments fo the proposal instead of ambiguous statements that could do not argue anything.


Also the article in general is several months out of date and needs to be updated.

Frankly I am suprised that this page does not contain more information considering the size of this project and the nationwide attention is has garnered recently Skaz (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


When I first read this article I thought that I needed to get on the talk page and discuss it, and sure enough I see other talk, so I was Bold and went ahead and put up the tag. Teamcoltra (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I work in the investment side of the mining business and was just looking at this article. And yeah this is heavily slanted against the Pebble mine. The "Scientific Studies" is flat out BS. It doesn't give the findings of the any of the studies, but rather just says they include reports on all this terrible environmental disasters. Why not include the findings? Also, when you do, please be sure to include all of it. I'm personally against the building of huge mines like this too. But I'm more against presenting half truths as the whole fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.27.12 (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The section has nothing in it because the studies haven't been released yet. Stating what the studies are examining doesn't mean that is/will be the conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.8.38.17 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the gallery because I do not believe it helps to the topic.

For one, the pictures are not of pebble mine, but of land where pebble mine is proposed to be located. I understand the intent is tho show how pristine the area is, but we do not need a full gallery of pictures of nature in an article about a mine.

Another reason is that I could take a picture of any hill near any lake and say it is near pebble mine. Not that I'm doubting the truthfulness of the location in the picturs, but there is nothing in the pictures that makes them specific to the Pebble Mine location. Skaz (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To Do List

I feel the following topics need to be added to this article. I will try to do what I can as I have time:

  • Discussion about the ongoing citizens initiatives and their possible impact on the project
  • Current status of the project. This would go more indepth into where things stand as far as exploration, permitting, feasibility studies, etc.


Thats all I have at the moment...feel free to add in. Skaz (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


I think that the scope of the entry is a little large; the 2008 Clean Water Initiative portion should be an entry on its own, and should only have a reference in this entry, possibly with a discussion of the way the initiative, if passed, would have affected Pebble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HDRAlaska (talk • contribs) 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ownership and operator

We need a "Ownership and operator" section.

  • Operator:
    • Pebble Mines Corp.
  • Owner:
    • Pebble Limited Partnership
      • 50% - Anglo American PLC
      • 50% - Northern Dynasty Minerals LTD (19.6 % - Kennecott Canada Exploration Inc., a subsidiary of Rio Tinto plc; 9.1% - Mitsubishi Corporation)

Opinions, ideas?

WikiDon (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know where the name came from. Why "Pebble" Mine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.172.104 (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

please no edit war

My concern is that the article is getting messy, unfocused, and repetitive.

I suggest you put your lists of anti-mine concerns (I do not diss them, they are valid concerns) in the "Arguments against the proposal" section.

The "Scientific Studies" section was a great addition to the article.

But, it is perhaps not an appropriate place for a laundry-list of possible ill effects of mining. Especially since most of those concerns are already addressed elsewhere in the article. For example, see both the geology section and the controversy section for discussion of siesmic risk and reference to groundtruth paper on siemic risk - repeating it in detail a third time in the SciStudy section is too much.

Or you could restructure the entire article top to bottom, which might make it a lot better. --CGX (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, no edit war

Hi CGX,

I, too, want no edit war. But then, I haven't pulled down any of your posts. I am trying to be as neutral as possible, while also including on this very important site some contextual scientific information. I'm not opposed to placing these headings and references in the "arguments against" section, but I believe they are better suited to a science section in which science studies both pro and con could be found easily. To me, that makes more sense. I'm less disturbed by redundancy than in having the labor of my work so shortened. I even added science directly from the Pebble Partnership site that is in the public domain as it is being prepared for state permitting purposes. I appreciate your decision to leave the actual references available.

I'm not ready to restructure the entire site. Perhaps we can work together on this. As for my posts, I'd rather see competing science added under new headings than headings for scienctific papers criticizing mining taken down. Hobig (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We can carry this on in one place here if you want to. Am glad to meet you.
I am concerned about redundancy and organization. The wikipedia goal is to produce a well-written stand-alone article (with links to supporting documentation). The goal is not primarily a list of useful references and hyperlinks.
About the neutrality - I do see your good faith effort to be neutral - but if dozens of possible effects and issues are listed for every study and every single possible effect and issue mentioned is a possible catastrophe, or at least negative....it reads more like a list of arguments against the project than like a list of scientific references. And now we are back at the purpose of Wikipedia again - a well written article. I think if we focus on writing the article, the references will fall into place on their own, without forcing text into the article just so that there is a place for the reference.
I know the feeling of having ones wiki-contributions tromped on. But you should realize that many of your contributions that I edited out are not lost - for example, see the (what I think are) improvements at the important very beginning of the article, the "Proposal," section. Your work lives on in the paragraph emphasizing the large scale of various industrial activities proposed. You'll see it elsewhere too, perhaps. I tried to gracefully incorporate your work, not just trash it. Some off-topic, minor stuff just had to go, although might well be a good fit in another article. (And you know the stuff edited out isn't lost anyway - you can still find them on the edits page if you want to grab parts of them.)
I think you are generally correct - good presentation of relevant information from scientific discussion of the Pebble project would benefit the article. And a lot of that information is originally written as an argument either for or against the project, and ALL of it is used by people actually arguing either for or against the project, so the "arguments" section might not be the craziest place to write about scientific arguments (disscusions). Or not.

--CGX (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You make valid points. Perhaps it is the controversial nature of this project that raises caution flags about appearing as an advocate for one side or the other. While I have my sympathies, I do want to maintain the neutrality of the article. But at the same time, I'd like to present readers with access to, in some reasonably easy fashion, scientific research pertinant to what Anglo-American and the Pebble Partnership have in mind. FYI, when I added the science studies under their own headings, the few sentences I posted under each were paraphrases from the studies themselves and placed there to give readers a quick synopsis of the papers' contents. You've done that in shorter fashion with your edits, and I appreciate that. Let's keep working on this and make the page as useful as possible. I look forward to our continued efforts.Hobig (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the link to to "The Truth About Pebble Mine" because there's not actually a website anymore, just a GoDaddy parked page. Does anyone have a new URL for this organization? I also cleaned up some other links in the Opposition section, removing one dead link and one link that didn't have anything to do with Pebble Mine, and renaming some other links for clarity.

Moby69 (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Pebble Partnership Propaganda

Claims made by Pebble Parnership include:

Anchorage, Alaska, May 30, 2013 -- :Development of the Pebble copper deposit could have significant economic impacts to the state of Alaska including an estimated $136 to $180 million in annual taxes and royalties...Among the key findings of the report commissioned by the Pebble Limited Partnership, are that the copper, gold and molybdenum mine could support more than 16,000 jobs nationwide during construction, including nearly 5,000 jobs in Alaska alone during that time frame with an average annual wage of $63,500 per year. Pebble operations could support nearly 15,000 jobs in Alaska and the Lower 48; and potential subsequent development phases could support more than 16,000 jobs nationwide."

Facts reported by: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2013/03/07_noaa_report_finds_commercial_and_recreational.html  :

"The seafood industry—harvesters, seafood processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers and retailers—generated $129 billion in sales impacts, $37 billion in income impacts and supported 1.2 million jobs in 2011, the most recent year included in the report. Recreational fishing generated $70 billion in sales impacts, $20 billion in income impacts, and supported 455,000 jobs in 2011. Compared to 2010, the numbers are up for all of these impacts except commercial seafood sales. The annual report also breaks down the sales impacts, income impacts and job figures for each coastal state. The five states that generated the most jobs from fishing in 2011 were California, Massachusetts, Florida, Washington, and Alaska. The states with the most growth in the number of commercial fishing jobs compared to 2010 were Alabama (76 percent, net increase of 4,743 jobs), Mississippi (45 percent, net increase of 1,722 jobs), Oregon (32 percent, net increase of 4,483 jobs), Louisiana (29 percent, net increase of 7,272 jobs), and Alaska (17 percent, net increase of 9,288 jobs).

The greatest portion of the nation’s landings revenue generated by the commercial fishing industry was in Alaska ($1.9 billion), followed by Massachusetts ($433 million), and Maine ($381 million).



- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebThomas (talk • contribs) 20:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bloomberg's analysis

Why Miners Walked Away From the Planet's Richest Undeveloped Gold Deposit, 9/28/13. "Huge mining consortiums frequently seed nine-figure projects, but $760 million-plus [invested in the project to date] is still a large sum, so why did Anglo American bail now?" Nice article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Dead link there, try this one, Why Miners Walked Away From the Planet's Richest Undeveloped Gold Deposit TheNeutroniumAlchemist (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pebble Mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Pebble Mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Pebble Mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pebble Mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pebble_Mine/Archive_1&oldid=1029735050"