Recently the print media serving a large portion of the Kenai Peninsula, the Peninsula Clarion, ran a story by a reporter who flew around the site of the future Pebble Mine in a helicopter with Northern Dynasty officials ("Pebble Prospects Looking Good," Sept. 18).
Here is a brief synopsis, and please read the article for yourself to verify that I am not being unfair.
Part one: The reporter flies in a helicopter with the chief operating officer of the proposed mine. The reporter describes the layout of the future operation.
Part two: The reporter engages the chief operating officer in a "conversation" in which we are told of his commitment to the environment and the children.
Part three: The chief operation officer tells us that jobs demand is growing.
Part four: The chief operating officer tells us that jobs would be created by the mine. The end.
It has been said that good journalism raises questions, and to its credit, the story did leave me full of questions.
For instance: Why didn't the story refer to any of the nonminers and animals that currently make use of the Pebble area and the associated 1,000 square mile mining district? Why didn't it speak of the waters at the mine site and in the mining district that are important for the fish? Why didn't it talk about the groundwater flow patterns that exist in the Pebble area? Why no mention of changes in state regulation and or statue that is beneficial or detrimental to the future of the operation? What about the state personnel who will be responsible for overseeing the mine permits, what other open pit mines have they permitted before? Why was there no calculation, based on current estimates, market values and current tax structures as to what this operation will bring to the state and how this level of taxation compares to other industries? Why not a discussion of how much it will bring to the Lake and Peninsula boroughs based on their rate of severance tax?
Or how about how much will it bring to the Kenai Peninsula Borough? What about the nature of the jobs that will be created? And what about what kind of bonding is required by the state to ensure that the company pays for reclamation?
Why didn't it investigate who makes the call if this bonding level is adequate? And why no discussion of who will pay the cost of a clean-up if an unforeseen disaster occurs? Why was there not even a sentence regarding the solvency of the federal superfund? Why didn't the story get into whether this mine will require water treatment in perpetuity (also known as forever)?
Why no mention if there exists laws that hold foreign owned junior mining companies responsible for environmental cleanup should pollution occur 50 years after the mine has closed? Why no investigation into who owns the majority of stock in Hunter Dickinson, Northern Dynasty's parent company? Why didn't the reporter look into the other operations Hunter Dickinson has been involved in? Why no mention of how the marketing of wild Bristol Bay salmon may suffer downstream of the mine?
And final question: Why does it seem to be the intention of the journalist to promote development of the mine instead of asking questions of his own?
While a PR story about the good intentions of a mine's starry-eyed chief operating officer can be fun for kids, an extreme development like an open-pit mine is adult business. Always has been, always will be.
It is important that newspapers be strong, make reporters do their job and provided journalism with a capital "J." There is a truth out there beyond the dogma that mines are always good for economic development. It might not be the Clarion version, but it is truth nonetheless, and it deserves careful consideration.
Jon Flora is the recent founding member of Beyond Public Relations: Alaskans for Grown-up Reporting, a Bristol Bay fisherman, University of Alaska student and Homer-Fairbanks resident.
