Friday, April 27, 2018

Bristol Bay Economics (Fish vs. Mining)

Here's just a little something on Bristol Bay and the economics of Fishing v. Mining:


I oppose the development of Pebble and other mining prospects for a couple of complex reasons:
The first and foremost is the perpetual threat to the naturally occurring resources that are already being exploited by outside and foreign entities. But what about any actual benefits that the fisheries actually provide?  Let’s take a look at this passage; “And what of all those jobs that the fisheries provide? According the Alaska Department of Labor reports Nonresident Seafood Workers make up 75.5% of the workforce. According to New Food Economy, Bristol Bay processors bring in about 4500 workers annually to staff the fish plants and only about 15% of those workers are from Alaska and much less from Bristol Bay. These jobs usually pay about $10 per hour and workers usually work about 15 hours per day... further reducing the potential economic benefit of the fisheries by about $20Million. The fact that most of the processors are outside and foreign corporations also has a great impact on where the value of the fisheries actually ends up.
The overwhelming majority of drift fishing permits are also owned by out of region fishermen with over 50% being owned by non-Alaskans. In 2014, Bristol Bay residents only accounted for 11.7% of the fishery value.”

Just this week it became known that the State of Alaska has joined into a federal program aimed at boosting economic development in which they named 25 ‘Economic Opportunity Zones’ “as part of a federal program designed to drive long-term capital to distressed communities. A total of 60 census tracts were identified by the U.S. Department of Treasury as low-income communities that were eligible for the designation. Of these, the State was able to nominate as many as 25 of these tracts as Opportunity Zones. When selecting from among the eligible tracts, the State weighed numerous considerations based on available information and public input from business and community leaders across the state, including:
• Economic hardship
• Geographic representation
• Project feasibility
• Alignment with existing initiatives
• Community support

On the surface after reviewing the referenced criteria, it would seem that Southwestern Alaska would be prime for this, but no southwest regions were listed excepting the Aleutians and St. Paul; Island.  Bristol Bay, the Y-K Delta and Alaska Peninsula were totally excluded. This really makes one curious as to just what our Representative and Senator in the Alaska State Legislature are actually doing for Bristol Bay.

Secondly is the fact that even if developed, the fiscal benefits will not really exist as I explained on another comment on this thread.  Currently the Mineral taxation structure in Alaska has been the same since the mid-1950s and recent efforts to change them have been stonewalled in the Alaska State Legislature.  The ‘base rate’ on mineral extraction is 7% but there are also mechanisms that can be used to reduce and even negate that as shown below. 

“Mining License Tax Up to 7% of net income and royalties received in connection with mining properties and activities in Alaska. Quarry rock, sand and gravel, and marketable earth mining operations are exempt from the mining license tax. New mining operations exempt for 3-1/2 years after production begins.”

Depending on how PLP sets up their actual business model, if they ‘sell’ the raw ore at the dock in Amakdedori, they may actually be exempted from paying any taxes on the billions and billions of dollars’ worth of minerals expected to be extracted.  They will only be paying whatever taxes that the Lake and Peninsula Borough levies.  Even then at that point it is plausible that PLP will challenge those taxes using the State model as legal justification because the claim lies on State of Alaska property.

Moving on to the supposed economic boost through employment issue… under the new ‘foot in the door’ plan as submitted by PLP, they say that during the construction phase of the project that there will be about 2000 workers involved and then about 850 workers during an expected 20 year operations period.  So let’s work with those numbers for now:
According the Pebble website:

Mining workers average making $108000.00 annually X 850 workers equals $91800000 X .75 (AK resident workforce participation rate) = $68,850,000.00 in annual wages X 20 Years of expected project life = $1,377,000,000.00
So… in all fairness, I submitted a list of questions to the Pebble Limited Partnership concerning their plans for employment and economic development. Here they are with answers provided by Mike Heatwole:

1.     What is the targeted ‘in-region’ hire rate?
A – Our goal remains to hire as many regional residents as we can.  We recognize this will take some work and have worked for many years on a workforce development strategy – much of it modeled on what our colleagues are proposing at Donlin Gold.  One key aspect is our plan to use construction as a technical training ground for operational jobs.  Additionally, there will be programs in place to encourage upward mobility.  Sharing a story from a colleague from a mine in Nunavut: http://nunavutnews.com/nunavut-news/baker-lake-woman-fulfills-goals-at-meadowbank/ .  We get a lot of criticism that all of the jobs will go to people outside the region and take advantage of every opportunity to explain why that’s not the case.  We do recognize that some of the higher wage jobs require specialized skill sets and that’s why we need a workforce plan so we can work with people so they know what’s required and to find ways we can help.  Back to Donlin, their booklet does a great job showing the skills needed for each job.  Here’s a link:  https://www.donlingold.com/careers/potential-jobs-at-donlin-gold/ .  I’m hopeful we can publish something similar for Pebble later this year.
2.     What is the mineral severance tax rate that will be applicable to your project, both State and Lake & Peninsula Borough?
A – Like all mining projects in Alaska, Pebble will be subject to the Alaska Mining License Tax and the state corporate income tax.  Additionally, since we are on state land we’ll be subject to a royalty too.  I believe the MLT is 7% on net income and the royalty is 3% on net income.  Our internal estimate is that we’ll pay about $60 million/year to the state on the current plan.  For the LPB, they have a 1.5% severance tax on gross and our internal calculation places it at about $20 million/year.  We are working on a preliminary economic assessment (PEA) that will be released later this year that will add more detail on the financial questions.
3.     Is PLP looking to contract with regional ANCSA entities other than IDC & APC for construction and maintenance operations?
A – Short answer is yes.  Ideally, we’d like to establish a long term business relationship with BBNC.  For example, we’re very interested in having a third party entity build and operate our power plant.  As you’ve probably read, we are including extra capacity in our energy infrastructure to be in position to share gas and/or electricity with interested communities and will work with regional interests and the state about how they can get the infrastructure in place to make this a reality.  There will be a lot of dialog about this in the months and years ahead.  Thus, the opportunity for a regional interest to own the power plant would go a long way toward helping with this.  There are other opportunities regarding infrastructure that we’d be interested in pursuing similar relationships – e.g. the port.  We also want to work with other interested village corporations – esp. for operations contracting opportunities.  This is one reason we undertook the relationship last year with ASRC – to start the process of ensuring the Lake Area VC’s can fully participate in the long term contracting opportunities with Pebble  Additionally, this is where the in-region hire opportunity really exists.
4.     Is PLP also looking to help nearby communities develop infrastructure and commerce opportunities that will benefit from the projected long-term workforce?
A – Again, short answer is yes.  We want to be a good neighbor with the communities around us.  Regarding infrastructure, we have indicated that our transportation corridor will be private.  Our view is that this is where the conversation will begin with the communities.  We can then talk about controlled access – primarily to ensure safety along the road.  Unrestricted access could present significant safety concerns.  A private road also allows for subsistence protections.  We know that there is interest among the proximal communities about access to the road, port, and ferry.  It’s also our intention to work out a way to get goods to nearby communities to take advantage of lower transportation costs.”

In closing, I want to point out that until the powers that be in Bristol Bay actually make a concerted effort at reconciliation towards true unity and sustainability, Our communities will remain vulnerable for future exploitation by outside and foreign resource development.  This doesn’t just apply to minerals and carbon fuels but obviously also to the fisheries.  We live in a region suffering from high rates of unemployment, welfare dependence, substance abuse, crime and domestic violence.  These faltering socio-economic trends do not seem to be abating either.  This is absolutely unacceptable on so many levels… something has to be done sooner than later. 

RESOURCE REFERENCES: