Energy & Mining

The Palmer Project is a copper, zinc, gold and silver exploration project upstream from Haines and Klukwan. Constantine Metals, which owns the Palmer Project, has received permission from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to proceed with seismic exploration at two sites above the Klehini River.

The new activities will include building miles of trails 25 feet wide, some shallow drilling, operation of heavy equipment and helicopters, and detonation of close to one thousand sticks of dynamite.

The permitting process came under public scrutiny earlier this summer. Environmental groups claimed the process was rushed, and many residents submitted public comments to DNR.

DNR issued a public notice announcing the new permit. The document states DNR received almost 200 letters from individuals, and that around 13,000 people submitted a comment opposing the permit through the Audubon Alaska website.

The state department offered its response to the comments. The response systematically addresses 30 concerns that were brought up by residents. The issues addressed range from the technical to the bureaucratic, the political to the recreational.

To comments generally opposing the project because of the risk to fish, the agency responded it is working closely with the Department of Fish and Game, and consider the activities impacts will be negligible. It further states the Palmer Project is participating in a statewide bond pool. This is a fund mining companies contribute to – the funds would be made available should the company fail to pay for damages incurred during the work.

To comments opposing the use of explosives, the agency said that the noise of the explosions would be comparable to that of a hunting rifle. It further says that “these intermittent shots are unlikely to cause a civil nuisance or have adverse impacts on wildlife or other nearby land uses.”

The agency states the gelatin based dynamite sticks authorized under the permit will not present any environmental concerns.

Several commenters remarked that the new activities require going through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). To this, the agency responded this is a federal requirement that does not apply in this case.

Some comments pointed to restricted access on the public land affected by the activities. The agency said that access will only be restricted when blasting activities are occurring. In an email ,  Constantine said the borough will be notified, and signage will be used when active work is taking place.

Several commenters, including the Chilkat Indian Village indicated that a formal tribal consultation should occur. They stated that to date, DNR has declined to engage in tribal consultation, and it has failed to arrange any public meetings. The Tribe asked for, quote: “*at least one Tribal consultation on a government-to-government basis that is respectful of the Tribe’s sovereignty and expertise.”

The agency said there is quote “no existing legal obligation warranting government-to-government consultation for the issued authorization.” It went on to say that the state has no legal obligation to provide a sovereign government with greater consideration than the rest of the public, and that the 30 day comment period provided sufficient opportunity for the Tribe to voice its concerns.

The exploration work could set the stage for a tailings storage area, a place to hold toxic mine waste. Some commenters asked that DNR consider the big picture and deny the permit on that basis. The agency‘s response followed a different logic. It stated that the permit is part of an incremental process that will allow for better decision making as more data is collected during the exploration.

Some public comments mentioned a climate of impunity that allows developers to initiate work before obtaining the proper permits. In early June, Constantine did just that, and cleared some seismic trails at one of the sites.

Lorraine Henry, a spokesperson for DNR, said in an email that corrective action has been taken, she wrote: “To ensure compliance with the terms of the permit, the Division is requiring Constantine to provide an additional $5,000 bond.” According to a press release from American Pacific, which owns Constantine, this season’s budget for the operations at the Palmer Project is over 25 million dollars.

In its response the agency invoked the “De minimis non curat lex” principle. This is Latin for “the law is not concerned with insignificant  matters”.

Methodically, the agency responded to the 30 points raised during public comments, and justified why it issued the permit.

Environmental advocates who read through the document were not convinced.

“Technically I suppose they addressed the comments, in that they wrote out written responses,” said Shannon Donnahue, who works for Rivers Without Borders.

“Once you get into the nitty gritty of these permitting processes, the process is so lenient that Constantine/American Pacific went ahead and started work before the public comment period was over,” she said. “That doesn’t give me much confidence in the regulations and that they will comply with the permit now that it is awarded.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also submitted a comment, praising the rich life of the valley. It said the Chilkat watershed provides some of the best salmon habitat in Southeast Alaska. Is said that given the “area’s rich biodiversity and relative lack of legislative and administrative protection”, the Service encourages DNR to implement strict conservation measures.

In its response, DNR defended its protocols and said the accusation “is unfounded and promotes an unwarranted narrative.”

In an e-mail, a Constantine said it is working with their contractor to finalize the work’s timeline. In a press release, American Pacific announced good progress with its drilling program, and stated that a priority of  its environmental team is to “ensure Palmer’s environmental studies and monitoring provide community confidence  in the project above and beyond regulatory compliance.”

DNR’s decision can be appealed for up to 20 days after its issuance. No entity contacted for this story has committed to doing so.

The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is appealing the decision of a federal judge who ruled in March that ConocoPhillips, a major North Slope oil producer, may keep some drilling data secret.

According to a filing dated Wednesday, the commission is appealing the decision by U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In March, Gleason determined that a federal law preempts a state law that requires North Slope companies to make data publicly available.

The state’s goal was to encourage drilling on the North Slope, but Gleason determined that the state law should be overridden by federal rules because the relevant data comes from five oil wells in the federally owned National Petroleum Reserve.

ConocoPhillips Alaska is developing part of the reserve under its Willow Project, which is also the subject of separate litigation.

Gleason determined that the Willow data should be released only after ConocoPhillips’ leases with the federal government expire.

ConocoPhillips filed a lawsuit against the commission last year after unsuccessfully asking the state to extend the privacy period.

As of Thursday morning, the state’s appeal had not been processed by the 9th Circuit, and no additional documents had been posted online.

The Dunleavy administration on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to block the controversial Pebble copper and gold mine.

The administration filed what is known as a “bill of complaint” with the nation’s highest court that argues that the federal agency’s use of the Clean Water Act to preclude Pebble development violates the state’s right to use its natural resources. The document details the state’s complaint and also seeks permission to argue the case in full to the nation’s highest court.

Appealing directly to the Supreme Court while bypassing all lower courts is an unusual step, but it is warranted “given the extraordinary decision being challenged,” Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor said in a statement released by the state Department of Law.

“If EPA can rely on undefined terms and subjective standards instead of sound science to bypass the regular State and federal permitting processes here, it can do it anywhere, from large mining projects such as this, down to a family building their dream home. It’s an indefensible and unprecedented power grab that the U.S. Supreme Court should find unlawful,” Taylor said in the statement.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy, in the statement, echoed arguments made in the brief assert the EPA action effectively confiscates state property and clashes with the Alaska constitution’s mandates.

“Our constitution is clear: Alaska is responsible for utilizing, developing, and conserving all of the State’s natural resources for the maximum benefit of its people,” Dunleavy said in the statement. “Bureaucrats in Washington D.C. are exercising unbridled and unlawful power to choke off any further discussion on this important decision affecting so many Alaskans.”

The EPA on Jan. 30 announced its decision to invoke a little-used provision of the Clean Water Act to prohibit development of the Pebble Mine or any similar metals mine in the area. That announcement capped a process that ran for over a decade, starting with requests made in 2010 by Native organizations for the federal agency to use the Clean Water Act to prevent permitting of the mine. The law’s Section 404(c) authorizes the EPA to prohibit a project that would cause dredge or fill having an “unacceptable adverse impact” on municipal water supplies, fisheries, wildlife or recreational areas.

During the Obama administration, the EPA put together a Bristol Bay watershed assessment that was completed in 2014. Through the regulatory process, the Obama administration’s EPA proposed a Section 404(c) prohibition on Pebble or a similar mine in the watershed, citing what it concluded would be irreparable losses to salmon habitat important to both people and wildlife. That process was delayed by litigation and suspended by the succeeding Trump administration before being revived by the Biden administration.

The 91-page brief filed by the state on Wednesday describes the EPA decision as depriving the state of economic value – specifically, the mining potential of the land in question. The Pebble deposit contains copper, gold and other minerals.

“Due to its remoteness and lack of infrastructure and development, the only economically productive use for the land is mining. But by making it impossible for the State to utilize the land’s mineral resources, the EPA has effectively confiscated the land and created a de facto national park contrary to federal prohibition,” the document says.

But to mine opponents, the territory eyed for Pebble is valuable for its role supporting the Bristol Bay ecosystem, home to the world’s biggest sockeye salmon runs and the base for important commercial and subsistence fish harvests.

The proposal to build the huge open-pit mine has stirred opposition for many years from fishing, environmental and Native organizations, including the regional Bristol Bay Native Corp. Polling conducted by the Bristol Bay Native Corp., has shown consistent statewide opposition to the mine since 2012 and even stronger opposition within the region.

On Wednesday, representatives of the groups that have fought against the mine – and celebrated the EPA’s decision earlier this year — said they were surprised and disappointed by the state’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

“Today’s legal filing from the Governor is a slap in the face to Bristol Bay. Contrary to his false narrative, it was our Tribes, Alaska’s First People, who requested this action because politicians like Governor Dunleavy slammed the door in our face and put the interests of a Canadian Mining company above our rural villages and our world class salmon fishery,” Alannah Hurley, executive director of the United Tribes of Bristol Bay, said in a statement.

Hurley said the EPA action “is grounded in sound science” and predicted that the Dunleavy administration’s attempt will fail. “The Governor is once again ignoring the will of Alaskans and legal process by filing an action directly in the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, our Tribes will continue to defend EPA’s Clean Water Act protections for our region. We will use every tool at our disposal to protect our waters, our salmon, and our people,” she said.

Nelli Williams, Alaska director of Trout Unlimited, also released a statement.

“The Governor is ignoring Alaskans and science with this lawsuit. And even more appalling, he is using public funds to prop up out-of-state mining executives at the expense of Alaska’s salmon and all the people who rely on them. It’s anti-Alaskan,” she said.

Carole Holley, Alaska regional managing attorney for Earthjustice, said that the effort “goes against the wishes of most Alaskans.” She added: “It’s a highly unusual legal move, and also a highly unpopular one.”

But Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., the Vancouver-based company that owns the Pebble Limited Partnership, applauded the administration’s move and pledged to assist in the legal effort.

“The Bill of Complaint filed by Alaska is a welcome development in the long Pebble saga,” Ron Thiessen, the company’s president and chief executive officer, said in a statement. “Northern Dynasty strongly, and I mean very strongly, supports all of the arguments set forth by the State and we congratulate the State for bringing these claims directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Northern Dynasty intends to prepare and file with the Supreme Court appropriate briefs to support the State’s case.”

The state action comes as the Bristol Bay commercial salmon season is nearing completion. As of Wednesday, 38.6 million salmon, almost all which is sockeye, had been harvested by commercial fishers this summer, according to preliminary figures from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

This year’s harvest so far is well short of the more than 60 million salmon harvested last year from a record Bristol Bay sockeye run of 79 million fish, but it is above the recent 20-year average, according to Department of Fish and Game data. Bristol Bay sockeye runs have been particularly strong in recent years, according to the department.

The Supreme Court will not be in session until October.

You can build a small nuclear reactor in Alaska, but not within 2,700 feet of a house.

On Monday, Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom signed a package of regulations that dictate where small nuclear reactors, sometimes called “microreactors,” may be built in Alaska.

The regulations arrive as the U.S. Air Force advances plans to build the state’s first microreactor at Eielson Air Force Base, southeast of Fairbanks.

Copper River Electric Association, which supplies power to Glennallen, Valdez, and the surrounding area, is also considering construction of a microreactor.

Microreactors are designed to function as a single, sealed module that could be transported on the back of an 18-wheeler.

Last year, Gov. Mike Dunleavy signed into law a bill that makes it easier for companies to place small, modular nuclear reactors in the state, waiving some requirements imposed on larger facilities.

That legislation kicked off the start of a regulatory process by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, which — along with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission — would oversee any modular reactor.

The regulations signed this week don’t deal specifically with nuclear safety, only where a reactor could be sited. Among the restrictions: A reactor can’t be built within 2,700 feet of a residence, 300 feet of a national park or game reserve, in a coastal area vulnerable to storm surge, within 100 feet of a public road or trail, or in an area protected because it’s used for drinking water.

Any reactor site must be approved by the local municipal government, and if a reactor is planned for a site outside an organized borough, the Alaska Legislature must approve the site.

Those site restrictions could also apply to a nuclear waste site or a facility that processes nuclear fuel, the regulations state. None have been publicly announced here.

During a public comment period earlier this year, the proposed regulations were opposed by the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Copper Country Alliance and several individual residents who said they were concerned about dangers posed by nuclear power.

“It seems to be that Alaska is going to be a Guinea pig for this experimental technology. Seeing all the polluted places the Army left here does not give me any confidence that they would act responsibly here,” wrote Brigitte Jaeger of Fairbanks.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, a national organization that supports microreactor development, was also critical of some parts of the proposed regulations.

An early draft proposed banning microreactors within 300 feet of “an area subject to high risks from volcanic activity, ice floes, or avalanches” and in 100-year flood plains.

The institute criticized those sections, noting that concerns about radiation leaks are the domain of federal regulators, and those sections do not appear in the final regulations.

Instead, the rules  state that if part of a facility is located in a 100-year flood plain, operators have to demonstrate that a flood would not damage the facility.

The institute also criticized sections of the regulations that require public notice and sections that require operators to share information with the state; those remain in the final rules.

The new regulations come into effect in August.

Any proposed microreactor would have to obtain permits from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a process that takes several years. The NRC lists no pending Alaska-related projects.

This story originally appeared in the Alaska Beacon and is republished here with permission.

The U.S. Department of Defense has awarded a $37.5 million grant to boost an Alaska mine project that would produce a mineral deemed critical to electronics and batteries: graphite.

The award is to go to Graphite One Inc., a Vancouver-based company seeking to develop a mine about 37 miles north of Nome, the department said on Monday.

The grant is intended to help Graphite One complete its economic feasibility study more quickly. It was made through a department office focused on expanding manufacturing capability.

Graphite – well-known for its use in ordinary pencils — is considered a critical mineral because it is used in high-temperature lubricants, brushes for electrical motors, friction materials and battery and fuel cells, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

The Graphite Creek deposit that Graphite One is seeking to develop is, by far, the largest of 10 identified significant graphite deposits in the nation, according to the USGS. The U.S. has not produced any domestic graphite since the 1950s and depends entirely on imports, mostly from China, Mexico and Canada, according to the USGS.

Helping Graphite One advance its project is in the national interest, the Department of Defense said in a statement.

“This investment to increase domestic capabilities for graphite exemplifies Industrial Base Policy’s commitment to building a resilient industrial base to meet current and future national defense requirements,” Dr. Laura Taylor-Kale, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy, said in the statement. “The agreement with Graphite One (Alaska) advances the Defense Department’s strategy for minerals and materials related to large-capacity batteries.”

Graphite One’s chief executive officer said the company plans to start the accelerated feasibility study “immediately.”

“This Department of Defense grant underscores our confidence in our strategy to build a 100% U.S.-based advanced graphite supply chain — from mining to refining to recycling. The U.S. simply cannot maintain a 21st Century tech-driven economy without Critical Minerals like graphite,” Anthony Huston, founder and CEO of Graphite One Inc., said in the Department of Defense statement.

The Graphite One mine, if developed, would use an expanded Port of Nome as a shipping and staging site.

Money for the grant comes from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, a bill passed with only Democratic votes.

Graphite production is not new to Graphite Creek. It was the site of a small-scale graphite mining operation about a century ago. Claims were first staked in 1900, according to the USGS. A small amount of flaked graphite was mined in the early part of the 20th century, a few hundred tons at most, before mining there ceased after about 1917, according to the USGS.

Graphite One’s proposed project would dwarf any past mining efforts. The company’s pre-feasibility report issued last year outlines a 26-year mine producing 75,026 metric tons of graphite products annually. The project would have to be of substantial size to attract customers and be economically worthwhile to develop, company officials told Nome residents in April.

In the Nome area, some officials and residents welcome the mine development, while others have expressed concerns about a planned access road and effects on subsistence users and resources. Graphite One officials have made multiple public presentations to update communities on the mine progress and address concerns.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy, in a statement, welcomed the grant.

“Thank you to the Department of Defense for recognizing the importance of Alaska’s vast mineral wealth, one example being Graphite One,” Dunleavy said in the statement.

Dunleavy, along with other Republicans, opposed the Inflation Reduction Act when it was being debated and criticized it, characterizing it as unleashing too much government spending. “When you spend more money in an inflationary period, it’s difficult to understand how you reduce inflation,” he said in a Bloomberg TV interview last August.

On-site work continues at Graphite Creek. A spokesperson for Graphite One said that as of Monday, there were 53 workers at the site, three drill rigs operating and environmental and geotechnical studies ongoing.

Alaska and nine other states have notified the Environmental Protection Agency they intend to sue if new standards for certification of wood-burning stoves are not issued soon.

The EPA last issued standards for wood-burning stoves in 2015, and new standards are due at least every eight years, said the notice of intent to sue, which was issued on June 29.

The chief problem, the notice said, is that the EPA’s 2015 standards are flawed, inadequately administered and are allowing substandard devices to be certified, thus creating more pollution and deceiving consumers.

The notice of intent to sue gives the agency 60 days to produce revised wood-stove standards and a better process for testing and certifying the units.

Along with Alaska, the states filing the notice of intent to sue are New York, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, along with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.

For Alaska, the key issue is fine-particulate pollution in the Fairbanks area, which can be a serious problem and health hazard in winter.

The air-pollution problems stem from wintertime weather conditions known as inversions that are set up by surrounding mountains that trap cold air over the city and outlying areas. Particulate pollution from wood-burning stoves and other sources can get tapped in that stagnant air, resulting in violations of Clean Air Act standards. Despite several years of improvements, the Fairbanks North Star Borough is still considered to be falling short of federal standards for particulate pollution, labeled as a “nonattainment area.” The borough is the subject of an improvement plan from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation that requires EPA approval.

The latest state improvement plan, referred to as a SIP, remains under review by the EPA, with a final decision expected by the end of the year.

The EPA on Dec. 30 gave mixed reviews to the plan, proposing approval of some elements and rejection of others. The provisions concerning wood-burning stoves, for example, were seen as meriting approval, but other provisions, largely concerning commercial sources, were deemed insufficient. The agency said the state erred in failing to justify its decision to not require the best-available technology to be used in coal- and oil-burning power plants and in failing to justify its decision against requiring ultra-low-sulfur fuel for residential and commercial uses, among other deficiencies.

State officials argue that wood-burning stoves are responsible for most of the borough’s air pollution and that any new  requirements concerning power plants, commercial operations and diesel fuel would be onerous.

“We must defend the Greater Fairbanks area from potentially expensive, restrictive federal controls on businesses that are not the source of the problem like coffee roasters, restaurants, and utilities,” Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor said in a statement released last week by the Department of Law.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Jason Brune said wood smoke is responsible for 80% to 90% of the borough’s air-quality problems. “Unfortunately, EPA regulators in Seattle and Washington, D.C. are centrally focused on elements of the SIP that will have little to no environmental benefit, or at worst are overly punitive to utility ratepayers,” he said in the Department of Law statement.

But data from the EPA – which has praised Fairbanks’ improvements in wood-burning practices – indicates that those stoves are less of a problem than they were in the past and that validity of certification is now a relatively minor issue in the borough.

Since 2010, there have been thousands of stoves replaced, repaired or converted to non-wood units, according to EPA data. The 1,596 new wood-burning stoves installed between 2010 and 2022 showed significant improvements, according to the data. By 2022, the average emissions per wood-burning stove was less than a fourth of the 2010 average, according to the data.

Since 2016 – when standards set in 2015 were effective — 158 EPA-certified wood-burning stoves have been installed in the borough, according to the EPA’s data. Since that year, much of the changeover involved conversions to other types of heating.

The Alaska Legislature this spring passed a resolution urging a solution for the state-EPA dispute. The measure, House Joint Resolution 11, called on the EPA to update its wood-stove standards so they are more useful and credible and called on the Department of Environmental Conservation to “develop an economically and legally defensible state implementation plan for the Fairbanks North Star Borough nonattainment area.”

Aside from Alaska’s concerns about the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the states’ notice cited concerns that low-income and minority neighborhoods are suffering more from wood smoke that is being emitted by improperly certified heaters. “Many of these devices will be installed in communities that are overburdened by environmental harms and other inequities, further exacerbating environmental justice issues,” the notice said.

The states’ notice cited documented deficiencies in the EPA’s wood-stove certification program.

Those citations include an EPA Inspector General’s report issued in February that found the 2015 standards were flawed and that inaccurate tests and oversight likely meant that consumers were getting substandard products marketed as “certified.”

The notice also cited a 2021 study by a coalition of eight Northeast states that evaluated over 250 EPA-certified wood heaters and found “a systemic failure of the entire certification process” and a lack of oversight creating a “dysfunctional” system. In many cases, manufacturers and testing laboratories distorted measurements, resulting in consumers getting subpar products, the report said.

Bill Dunbar, a spokesperson for EPA’s Region 10 office, said on Wednesday that the agency would not comment on pending litigation.

This story originally appeared in the Alaska Beacon and is republished here with permission.