Don’t Trust Pebble’s Hired Science:
Concerns Continue Over Keystone’s “Stakeholder Dialogue Process”

Key Concerns:

Bristol Bay
Alaskans protesting the Keystone panel.

How can Keystone be considered an independent organization, when they are hired and tightly controlled by the developing company?

The Environmental Protection Agency recently completed a truly independent study on this issue, including Pebble’s EBD, at the invitation of Alaskans. Why did Pebble Limited Partnership repeatedly criticize this independent study, but they expect stakeholders to trust the outcome of their hired process?

If Keystone was truly working to help stakeholders understand Pebble’s science, why are they holding their meetings in Anchorage rather than Bristol Bay?

Why is Pebble hiding or refusing to discuss a mine plan at these meetings? They claim they have not released a plan, while in reality they have multiple plans on file with the State, and with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission.

Why we don’t trust Pebble’s Keystone process:

Paid for by Pebble

Unlike the EPA who were invited to investigate Pebble by local tribes, the Bristol Bay Native Corporation and thousands of people who rely on Bristol Bay for their fishing jobs, the Keystone process is paid for by the Pebble Partnership. How can we trust something that claims to be independent science when its fully funded by foreign corporations that are trying to dig the pebble mine? Why is Keystone meeting in Anchorage, rather than in Bristol Bay, where local residents can more easily attend? The EPA has done over 30 meetings in the region over the past 2 years.

Controlled by Pebble

Despite statements of ‘independence’ by Keystone, unlike the EPA process, Pebble is controlling every aspect of these meetings, including communication between independent scientists and the scientists on their review panel. Why is Pebble preventing their panelist from talking freely with independent scientists? 

Lack of stakeholder engagement

Despite claims that these meetings are intended to inform concerned community members, unlike EPA, keystone is not providing the time nor space for meaningful public participation. Most egregiously, these meetings are happening far away from the Bristol Bay communities most impacted – many Bristol Bay residents do not even know they are happening.

There is a plan

The Pebble Partnership has said for years that there is no plan for Pebble MIne. In reality, they have multiple plans on file with the State and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Refusal to be open

Keystone says that a possible mine plan will not be discussed at these meetings. Why does Pebble refuse to discuss a mine plan with the concerned public? What are they hiding?

Lack of transparency

The Pebble Limited Partnership has routinely withheld data and findings from state and federal employees. When Pebble finally handed its data to the EPA - 9 months late- it provided the data in a format that was nearly unusable. Why is Pebble so afraid to share their data with the public? What is in that data that they are trying to hide?

Asking the wrong questions

Keystone continues to ask the wrong question. They are asking “how to build a mine,” rather than “should we build the mine?”

This mine is no different

Pebble claims they can build this mine with modern technology. Yet, even in modern mines like Fort Knox, accidents happen. Bristol Bay is no place to test new technology. And, Bristol Bay is no place to allow for accidents.

A track record of damaging fish habitat

The Pebble Limited Partnership already has a track record of violations in Bristol Bay, including massive fuel spills and violating state water law at their exploration site. This track record does not make Alaskans confident that this is a company that can contain 10 billion tons of toxic mine waste for decades to come.

Keystone Process Document

Stakeholder Concerns and Others

Bristol Bay