Wishbone job claims greatly exaggerated

According to the Usibelli Coal Mine Co. (UCM) and their local boosters, the proposed Wishbone Hill open pit coal mine outside of Palmer will employ 75 to 125 people.

However, when looking at a spreadsheet produced by the U.S. Energy Information Administration on nationwide Coal Production for 2008 (which includes the production for each mine and the number of employees employed by each mine), this claim of 75 to 125 jobs is greatly exaggerated.

It’s important to know for sure how many employees the proposed Wishbone Hill mine would employ because public attitudes toward this mine, as well as state and local government support and approval for the mine, rest, in large part, on claims that a mine will have a positive economic impact.

In fact, an analysis of employment data of comparable strip coal mines shows that a mine at Wishbone Hill will benefit very few at the expense of a huge number of local property owners, and these property owners have a lot to lose. Within just two miles of the mine area are more than $80 million in tax assessed property values (2010).

Let’s compare the proposed Wishbone Hill project with Usibelli’s strip coal mine located five miles outside of Healy. In 2008, an average of 104 Healy employees produced 1,477,015 tons of coal. According to a study commissioned by the Mat-Su Borough and conducted by University of Alaska Anchorage’s Institute for Social and Economic Research, the proposed Wishbone Hill mine will produce 500,000 tons of coal per year with 93 employees. If Alaska’s only coal mine can produce 1,477,015 tons of coal with 104 employees, it’s not going to take 93 employees to mine and process one-third the coal.

So how many people do comparable coal strip mines employ elsewhere in the U.S.? First, it depends on the type of mine. The proposed mine at Wishbone Hill would be what is called a combination mine and prep plant. This is also the type of mine that UCM runs near Healy. According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, other open pit combo mines require far fewer employees to conduct their operations than what ISER and UCM project will be employed at Wishbone Hill.

For example, the Oxbow Lignite Surface Mine (Red River Mining Company) in Louisiana employed 40 people to produce 558,584 tons of coal in 2008. The Job No. 3 (Tri-Star Mining Inc.) in Maryland employed 45 people to produce 577,714 tons. There are several other examples, but you get the picture.

Are we to assume that Alaska workers are only half as productive as those workers living in Louisiana or Maryland? Of course not, but those who stand to benefit from a mine at Wishbone Hill know that they must paint a rosy picture in order to offset the negative impacts that their operation will have on local property owners.

The Usibelli Coal Mine Co. local boosters (which include the Mat-Su Business Alliance) claim that there will be no negative impacts from this mine. In fact, the MSBA makes the outlandish claim that property values adjacent to the proposed Wishbone Hill mine will actually increase.

Such claims, however, are not made by Usibelli or DNR representatives. Rob Brown, UCM’s vice president for Southcentral operations, said while meeting with area residents at the Sutton library, “I’m not going to lie to you, you will be affected.”

Another UCM representative at this same meeting, Jim Helling, was adamant that nearby residents would be affected, saying repeatedly that, “You will be impacted.” A tape of this meeting is available, contact the Mat-Valley Coalition.

And at a later meeting with Buffalo Mine Road residents, Russ Kirkham, the DNR Coal Regulatory Program manager, told us that he understood why area residents were concerned, and that a nearby mine will impact their neighborhood. He then added, “My hands are tied — I’m just doing what the Legislature tells me to do.”

A year later, at a Borough Assembly meeting, Steve Denton, the now retired UCM vice president for Business Development, said that blasting at the mine, which according to UCM’s permit application could occur up to 300 days a year, will not likely crack the foundations of nearby homes. If homeowners were relieved to hear this news, they were shocked by Denton’s next statement, which was that in the unlikely event that a misplaced charge blows out the windows of nearby homes, UCM will replace them. Finally, Joe Usibelli Sr. acknowledged that a mine would be “loud” when he met with representatives of the Mat-Valley Coalition.

The main argument given by UCM’s local boosters for developing Wishbone Hill is that the “Valley needs the jobs.” However, if we’re to believe Neil Fried, an Alaska state economist, our economy is in good shape. In a Feb. 21 presentation to the borough assembly, Fried said that the Mat-Su Borough’s economy is strong, relative to the rest of our state and our nation.

This raises the question, will our local economy stay healthy if we allow in a negative industry with a track record of toxic releases and an association with economic stagnation?

Again, although the proposed Wishbone Hill mine would be a relatively small mine, the impacts on area residents would be disproportionately severe.

Pete Praetorius lives near the proposed mine and is an associate professor of communication at Mat-Su College.