We don't judge wether to build airplanes based on the technology used in 1909. We don't judge bridges or buildings on technology or practices extant only in 1783. Why would you judge modern mining by the blatantly insupportable extraction techniques of the past?
All modern projects require bonding for cleanup, as well they should.
I'd prefer to think opposition to producing what we *all* use every day is based upon the easily correctable mistake of judging modern activity by flawed past practices, instead of hypocritical opposition to production of the basis of what someone is using right here, to argue against it.
-------------- Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Who pays for this? How do you find a company to hold responsible 35 years after mine closure? What will the cost be? Would a bond cover this? What is the cost and mitigation of drainage or worse into the Methow?
Do you really think that any bond would mitigate the damage from this spill? What is the cost of this spill?
What are the toxic metals that will cause risk in the Methow? Who will be responsible for preventing their release into the Methow decades or perhaps even a century after the mine is abandoned?
The EPA has taken responsibility for the incident, but refused to pay for any damages claims filed after the accident on grounds of sovereign immunity
Not the best example, unless one is looking for examples of a regulatory agency's orders harming the environment, of course.
If you read the analysis of the accident, toxic water was building up as a consequence of past mining, and the accident happened as the EPA tried to mitigate the problem. The mining companies were long gone. Taxpayers pay the cost.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum