The University of Alaska and the Wilson Center seem to have forgotten the importance of testing assumptions in setting up the agenda for the so-called “minerals summit” at UAF.

The summit is structured like an Alaska Miners Association convention or a cheerleading rally for speculators trying to get on the Vancouver stock exchange than an independent evaluation of major issues facing Alaska.

Speaker after speaker Monday said Alaska has unlimited potential for more mines, the federal government and Outside environmental groups are stopping progress, miners are misunderstood, too much land is off limits to mining and we need to clear every obstacle for companies to dig more holes in Alaska to better compete with China.

Endlessly repeating the mindless claim that “we do it better than anyone in the world” is not a substitute for analysis. Listen long enough and you get the idea that the mining companies are in Alaska for altruistic and patriotic purposes.

One goal of this event is to “generate discussion on how to frame mining in Alaska as a national imperative.” That’s a narrow focus, leaving no room for those who believe that generations to come might be far better off were we to make it a national imperative to keep more resources in the ground.

I don’t expect Dan Sullivan, Lisa Murkowski or Mike Dunleavy to admit that there are legitimate competing points of view.

Rick Van Nieuwenhuyse, the president and CEO of Contango ORE, said people have to be re-educated about the value and importance of mining, as they don’t understand what things are made of. He said the state should spend $10 million to re-educate people, countering the claim that mining is evil. Since its state money we’re talking about, not mining company money, another speaker jumped in to say the state should spend $20 million to sell the mining message.

The state has already given $10 million to Nieuwenhuyse’s company through an investment from the Alaska Permanent Fund. Contango is a 30 percent partner in the Kinross plan to turn Interior Alaska highways into mining supply roads by trucking ore from Tetlin to the Fort Knox mine.

Any dollar that the state puts into “re-education” should include matters not covered by the speakers at UAF—such as the mining tax rates that haven’t changed since the 1950s and that foreign companies dominate the industry.

“Alaska’s current mineral taxation system does not need to be revised. The system is comprehensive and fair to the state and the industry,” the mining companies declared in 2019.

There is a place for mining in Alaska. The gadgets and tools of the modern world require minerals that have to come out of the ground. To fail to recognize this is a threat to the future of our society. There won’t be a boom in electric cars unless more minerals are mined.

And yet, the claim that this is all about national security—and that every assumption from every promoter is valid—reminds me a bit of the “ask no questions” run-up to the war in Iraq.

The political atmosphere at the event is one in which Alaska’s U.S. senators, state politicians and state employees pushing the Dunleavy reelection campaign are completely at home.

It was a mistake for the university, which is heavily promoting this gathering, to include no one who dares raise uncomfortable questions about the mining industry and its future in Alaska.

The pitch to Alaskans at the so-called summit is that strategic and critical minerals are a national priority and it should be a state priority to obliterate political obstacles to get those resources into production as soon as possible.

Missing from the UA and Wilson Center promotional plan is the analytical attitude necessary to deal with questions that mining promoters would rather suppress about social and environmental impacts, taxes, royalties and the consequences of balancing short-term and long-term costs and benefits from mining or keeping land undisturbed for future generations.

Exactly how much of a critical or strategic mineral is necessary in a given location to justify a giant mine or road project that is aimed mainly at gold? What are the competing values that need to be considered? What is responsible mining? What should it look like in the future? Who stands to gain the most? Are the benefits likely to go to foreign investors? Are more state subsidies a good idea? What more needs to be done to limit environmental damage?

The University of Alaska failed to expand the discussion to take these and other questions into account.

Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673