The recent seminar on the Pebble mine held in Newhalen, the closest village to the prospective mine, raised more questions than answers.

Some media quotes attributed to me did little to clarify. For example I had said I could think of no place in Alaska where I’d less rather see the largest open pit mine in the world than at the headwaters of the Koktuli and Talarik Creek, two world-class fishing streams and wild salmon spawning areas.

The quote was correct but the message was wrong. There is a location where I’d even less wish to see such a mine: right in the middle of our living room floor at Lake Clark. But that is my own selfish reaction and should no more prevail than the self interests of advocates.

What should prevail is that which is in the collective best interest of all Alaskans.

A second quote erroneously attributed to me asserted the mine would contribute nothing to state coffers. While at best, under current law it would contribute very little to the state general fund, it would contribute nothing to the permanent fund, thereby failing to comply with our Constitution’s mandate that all Alaskans derive some benefit from natural resource development, not simply a local government or those who worked on the mine, but pay no state taxes.

While the mine may benefit a local government in which it is located, those benefits in the past appear to have seldom outweighed costs to the state.

Am I unalterably opposed to the Pebble mine? Only if it fails to meet the, four criteria required to assure minimal harm and maximum benefit. Is it environmentally sound? Can it pay its own way or will it fail to generate enough revenue to offset costs of state involvement in furnishing and maintaining infrastructure and services, environmental assessment, monitoring and enforcement and multitude of other hidden costs? Do the majority of Alaskans desire the project? Will it contribute something to the permanent fund in order to meet our constitution’s mandate that all our natural resources be managed for the maximum benefit of the people?

Northern Dynasty asserts they can meet the environmental requirements with no net loss. However, with no plan for fishery biologists to yet assess this, no one can say with assurance one way or the other. The same holds true as to the ability of the project to pay its own way. So far as public support, most villagers in the area have registered opposition in spite of assurance of jobs and potential transportation access and power cost reductions.

The fact is no one can really make judgments on Pebble till plans are submitted and assessed by some unbiased agency as to how it meets the four criteria mentioned above.

I have suggested the University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research might be the most appropriate agency to do so. Until such an assessment is made I remain “alterably” opposed to the project.

Should that assessment show all those criteria are met, my major objections would be largely diffused. To date the one criterion we know cannot be met under current law is the constitutional mandate to manage the resource for the maximum benefit of all. Only by contributing a significant royalty to the permanent fund can it possibly meet that mandate. As of now it will contribute nothing.

To those who share my concerns, I suggest you urge legislators to fund a study by ISER and take measures to adhere more closely to the Cremo plan which would assure some monies from all natural resource extraction be contributed to the permanent fund.

Until mining does so, I fear it will cost Alaskans collectively more than profit them. Certainly local governments can profit from property taxes and that non-tax paying employees perhaps make a good living, but at what hidden cost to the rest of us?

I believe an in-depth assessment of costs versus profits to the state from the billions mining companies have extracted from Alaska would be a real eye-opener to most Alaskans. Until such a study is made Alaskans will be forced to fumble in the dark through a maze of emotional attitudes and self interests unable to judge the project fairly.

Jay Hammond is a former Alaska governor.