Yesterday, we exposed that our old friend and “Science Fiction” expert Ann Maest was leading the fight against the Pebble project in Alaska. Maest testified at the EPA’s so-called peer review hearing for its sham watershed study of a “hypothetical” mine in Alaska.
But what we didn’t mention yesterday was one of Maest’s former comrades from Stratus Consulting is one of the EPA’s hand picked “peer reviewers.”
We can’t help but ask: is the EPA hearing really just a kangaroo court designed to rubber stamp the killing of the most important potential copper mine in U.S. history, the Pebble Project?
To help answer that question, look at who the EPA is in bed with on this sham study:
Science Fictionist Ann Maset, whose anti-mining work for Earthworks has been widely assailed for its sloppy methodology and reliance on out of date case studies. With this in mind, it seems that her report was written with the purpose of cooking the books to paint an inaccurate picture of mining’s impact on water quality.
Much of Maest’s work has been debunked and, in 2006, a United States District Judge excluded opinions by Ann Maest because “Plaintiffs failed to establish that the opinions were derived by use of any reliable methodology.
Yet, more disturbingly. Maest is currently subject of a civil RICO racketeering lawsuit in Federal court for her role in a class action lawsuit against Chevron in Ecuador. Maest, along with Stratus Consulting, is accused of conspiring with a plaintiff’s attorney to manipulate data and substitute her work for that of an impartial court appointed reviewer.
But despite all this, the EPA is happy to have Maest testify before her former Stratus Consulting colleague who is sitting on the peer review panel. Yes, the same Stratus Consulting that cooked the books in Ecuador.
It’s no wonder the EPA and Pebble’s well-funded environmental lobby opponents are looking to the questionable pseudo “scientists” like Maset. Together, they are attempting to lead the fight to rubber stamp what some say is the sloppiest and most biased environmental assessment ever conducted by the EPA— which is definitely saying something!