Mon, Dec 29, 2014, 9:42 AM EST - U.S. Markets close in 6 hrs 18 mins


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. Message Board

  • susankoffler susankoffler Aug 15, 2012 11:27 AM Flag

    Even the GOP expects the EPA to Veto Pebble

    An article from a pro-mining, anti-EPA perspective:

    "Robert Dillon, a Republican spokesman for the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and Murkowski’s point man on energy issues, said he expects EPA to veto the mine. That will have a “chilling effect” on projects across the country, he said, even if the decision is eventually overturned in court."

    “It’s an unprecedented extension of their power,” Dillon said. “Someone will take [EPA] to the court … and EPA will have to go back. But the problem is that’s a decade down the road.”

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Good article in that it summarizes the polarizing positions at play; however, nothing new.

      Your conclusion is narrowly supported on just one comment, while leaving out other noteworthy points cited in the article such as;

      “EPA has been exceptionally vague on why it believes it has this pre-emptive authority,” Issa wrote. “EPA's assertion of pre-emptive veto power appears to undermine the permitting process as outlined by Congress when it passed the [Clean Water Act] …. “Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), the chairman of a House subcommittee, has also questioned EPA’s handling of the project.” …”EPA is taking an activist approach that “circumvents” the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ authority to decide on the 60,000 permits they issue annually for such projects.”

      IMO, the EPA is purposefully vague and will continue to be so since they “have to” … they know perfectly well that a pre-application Veto would be acting outside their legislative authority. The rushed, poorly executed EPA Watershed Assessment Study is simply an administrative contrivance to play for greater agency control and oversight over future mining permitting and development activities in highly sensitive areas … However, this does not mean they intend to kill mining in those areas. Comments from Jason Metrokin, president and CEO of the Bristol Bay Native Corp. even suggest this opinion.

      “getting the EPA to address the salmon issue “up front” is the most efficient way to protect Bristol Bay’s salmon. Though Alaskan lawmakers want to go through the “normal application process” that lets EPA ask for changes later, Metrokin said going down that road in Alaska is usually a fast track to approval. He said EPA has the legal authority to” boost safeguards” for salmon. The state might argue or the congressional delegation might argue that it won’t get a rubber stamp. But looking back at the history of the state, has there been a time where a large mine has not been approved?”

      The Pebble development timeline plans and budgets for over four years to get thru the permitting process ... and any EPA quirks.

    • I disagree with your analysis and rush to the conclusion. However, I thank you for posting an article that isn't in the public domain.

    • fpetronski1119 Aug 15, 2012 11:33 AM Flag

      Basic education today for you Suzy Q and BOOBY/FRESNOGIRL.
      1 + 1 = $$$$
      Read slowly several times so that you can comprehend this startling information.
      For verification-Contact BUYLOWSELLHIGH

0.431-0.001(-0.16%)9:36 AMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.