To Alaskan audiences, Pebble says they have listened to our concerns and are now proposing a "smaller mine" with less impact to the fishery. Don’t be fooled by their lies. As they promote their new "small mine" they are simultaneously attempting to attract investors. As such, their OWN WEBSITE says the truth:
And, even if they were ACTUALLY scaling the size of the mine down (they're not), the project wouldn't even be economically feasible.
But for the sake of argument, we'll still play this out. Let's say Pebble ignores its fiduciary responsibility to investors (they won't, they need to make money) and the desires of any new mining partner (although a partner doesn't currently exist) and still constructs a "small" mine that never expands with additional phases to a larger mine, AND that they disregard that the mine would not be economically viable….
Science shows it would STILL have impacts to the fishery, contrary to what CEO Tom Collier claims.
(the smallest mine evaluated by EPA in 2014 was the 4.2 square miles (Pebble 0.25))
In summary, don't be fooled by Pebble's latest PR stunt. A "small" Pebble is:
- Not economically viable
- Not even the plan the company is pitching to potential investors
- Still an immense threat to Bristol Bay
- Would inevitably be expanded
- Simply a PR stunt
and most importantly,
6. Not happening.