The Pebble Project: Trying to Make a Molehill Out of a Mountain

In Alaska, a project that could determine the fate of a large region in the south is currently being hotly debated. Called the Pebble Project (for the Pebble Partnership that owns the mineral rights) it is a mining project that is still waiting for approval, since the mineral rights were first obtained in 2001 by the initial member of the Pebble Partnership (Klare, Ch.5). The claim, located near Iliamna Lake, is possibly the biggest gold mine and the second largest copper mine in the US, as well as containing respectable amounts of silver and the rare element molybdenum. However, it is located within a very sensitive ecologic region, with major watersheds and hundreds of rivers and streams moving through the area. But the concern about these waters being contaminated is more specific than the usual concern about downstream contamination and ecological poisoning: the region is home to the most prolific salmon fishery in the world. These fish are a keystone species for the region, being the staple diet for many creatures, as well as many Native American communities that rely on them to provide a large portion of their food supply each year. They are also important commercially- 12,500 people are employed in the $100 million per year industry. If toxins from the mining project were to enter this system, even if the fish didn't experience mass die-offs, the toxins would become concentrated in their bodies and make them unsuitable for safe consumption, still managing to ruin the lives and livelihoods of all who depend on them. With these considerations in mind, the resistance to the plan becomes easier to understand, despite the payload that would be taken from the ground and the jobs that it would generate.

The controversies aren't limited to just the nature of the project either. Currently, an independent panel set up by the Keystone Group is supposed to be partaking of a review of data gathered by the company that wants to do the work, but already two members have left the review panel. One left voluntarily, due to personal problems with the process as it was taking place, and the fact that they were supposed to perform the review based on conditions in the region, and without a proposed plan for them to consider in the process. The other was "excused" from the panel, due to a paper he had helped co-write on the fisheries and possible impacts of mining on the region, and this made it seem that he would be biased during the review process. While the second reviewer, Daniel Schindler, believes that both sides of the debate need to be analyzed for scientific accuracy, his contributions to research about the ecosystems of the research were viewed as "acts of advocacy." While it may be easy to see how the connection to be made, the fact that he holds both sides of the debate to standards of scientific accuracy should be enough to make him a valuable member of a review panel, and the fact that he has done research on the matter should support that claim, instead of branding him as being a sympathizer with one side. The one other matter for consideration is that if a plan for the mine had been submitted along with the data for the region (supplied by the Pebble Project) as the first reviewer would have liked, he may have been able to offer specific input based on his previous research.

Even with the possible benefits that the mine could offer to the region, there are many who believe that the impact would be too great to be offset by the benefits, especially since they will last much longer than the jobs that will be supposedly created by its activity. Many are worried not only what will happen to the communities that already populate the region, but about the generations who will come after, and be the ones who have to suffer most for any mistakes made at this time. As was already mentioned, most people who live in the region rely on the land for their food, since getting food delivered is too expensive for the local economies to handle, and many have learned the skills to do so effectively enough that they can fish, hunt, and gather resources to sustain themselves and their families. There are some who do it due to circumstances, and others who do it by choice, and probably some who do it with a mix of the two stimuli. But if a large industrial project were to be inserted into the environment, there would no longer be an ecosystem capable of sustaining these enterprising spirits, as game would most likely be frightened off, and the land would be changed so that various plants would be harder to find. And if the mine isn't able to live up to its promise to maintain the project in such a way that no contamination of the surroundings occurs, a promise that has never come to fruition by any mine that has similar conditions to the Pebble Project (even with claims that technology has advanced enough for them to do so), the fish and streams will be forever changed in such a way that the local culture and ecosystem will be irreparably damaged.

Perhaps the only way for this particular project to be done safely would be to develop a completely novel method of resource extraction that takes away the need for tailing ponds. Perhaps either tailings could be treated and recycled as the process proceeds, simultaneously reducing the quantity of material needed and the risk that comes with having ponds of toxic waste sitting out in the open. Or another method of removing the target resource from the ores can be developed, that wouldn't rely as much on chemical extraction. Whatever the case, I don't think that the mining should be done as most projects are done. The people and ecosystem of the region should not be put at such high risk to satisfy the greed of a world that has managed to squander a good portion of its resources when they could have found ways to reclaim them for reuse, and thus reduce the need to find ever increasing quantities of raw materials. While it may not be easy, the people of the region have a means to be self-sustainable, which in many ways is a greater boon to their existence than having a high per capita income. Those from outside shouldn't be allowed to take that from them for the sake of temporary (and to some degree, unneeded) boosts in production.

Can Coal Be Clean?

Clean coal is kind of a pipe dream. It's pretty much a rock that can be burned, and since it can be burned without any kind of purification process (in fact, I'm not sure if you can do anything to purify a solid like that) it is bound to have all sorts of nasty things, like heavy metals, mercury, arsenic, sulfur dioxide (which is one of the worst ingredients for acid rain) and the like. That's not even mentioning the significant quantity of CO2 that is released from burning coal. Most so-called "clean coal" tech has focused on removing the toxic compounds and dangerous particulate from emissions, and to a lesser degree reducing CO2 in emissions. In the past, coal burning plants used to respond to complaints in the local communities about their smoke and dust by making their smokestacks taller, thus making it so that the smoke and gasses would be blown further away from the local populace... thus spreading the problem into a larger area, and affecting more sensitive habitats. Nowadays, they try to improve filters and carbon capturing systems, which is only mitigating the larger problem. And while it is just about impossible to burn something that doesn't produce CO2, the sheer quantity that coal is able to produce gives it unique status as an especially dirty pollutant.

Something that may have an impact on how coal can be used is a method known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. It is a process that can be used to make liquid hydrocarbons from pretty much any combustible carbon-containing compound, such as biomass, natural gas, and coal. It does so by first generating carbon monoxide, then combining it with hydrogen. The process was first discovered by German scientists during the 1920's, and was subsequently used to convert coal to liquid fuel during WWII to power German war machines. While CO2 is still produced during the production and combustion of Fischer-Tropsch fuels, it can be captured more easily in the lab, and the other pollutants can be stripped from the gas stream during the production process as well, thus making a cleaner burning fuel. The process has been considered for mass use several times throughout US history, though economic aspects usually brought any advancement to a halt. In fact, some of these events may have been engineered to some degree: "The last time investors started lining up money for Fischer-Tropsch plants, in the 1970s, the OPEC oil cartel opened up its spigots and pushed the price of crude down to $10 a barrel, and that was that". Meanwhile, South Africa has based the majority of their fuel consumption on Fishcer-Tropsch fuels produced from local coal deposits. While it isn't the best alternative to petrol based fuels in terms of CO2 emissions, synthetic fuels are comparable in power, have fewer side products, and in some ways are easier to obtain than oil. After all, we would be able to make it from local sources, instead of having to import most of the ingredients.

While there wouldn't be a need to import most of the materials for Fischer-Tropsch fuels, and they can arguably be made cleaner than many current petrol based fuels, I would be remiss to overlook the aspect of how coal is obtained (though the making of such fuels from biomass would be a nice way to take care of garbage disposal at the same time). One of the greatest impacts coal has on the environment, while it has a more localized effect than the spreading of emissions, can be the mining of the coal from the ground. Whether it's shaft mining, strip mining, or the charmingly named "mountain top removal," there is usually some sort of impact on the surrounding area. Shaft mining, while there seems to be a relatively minimal effect on the ecosystem, can be dangerous work. And while one may think that the shaft is usually left behind after the work, most modern projects fill in the shaft after they leave to prevent some sort of collapse on the surface when the tunnel supports give. Strip mining leaves a massive gouge in the earth, which nature will be slow to reclaim due to the solid rock surfaces left behind with development, and often the rock that they can't use just gets dumped into nearby areas, managing to kill off another area, or perhaps blocking a source of water for a region and spreading the devastation further indirectly. Perhaps the one way this could be made productive is if someone found a way to make a city in the walls, kind of like the ancient city of Mesa Verde. But then, mountain top removal is just destructive, and unfortunately cheap enough that companies will use it anyway. So, even if we found a way to make synthetic fuels with coal feedstock, there would be the issue of how we would obtain it without causing more direct destruction than the insidious elements from the burning of fossil fuels could hope to match. In fact, it may compound the issue, as there would be less living plant biomass to take up the CO2 being produced.

Whatever the case, the one thing that is easiest to take from what I've learned is this: If there's a trick to clean coal, it is to not burn it as coal.

Extra links:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/epa_fischer.pdf 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
http://www.economist.com/node/13235041?story_id=13235041