The secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture shouldn't be siding with anyone during the federal process to review environmental impacts of the proposed Rosemont Copper Mine, but it appears he is doing so.
1. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— October 23,2009 @ 12:34AM
Ratings:-47+23
The "no action" option supported by Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords is not permitted under U.S. law. The U.S. Forest Service is well aware of this fact as was clearly stated in this article by the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack.
The mining industry knows its rights under U.S. law and will no longer allow itself to be taken advantage of by some who wish to unjustly deprive it of those rights. The proposed Rosemont copper mine is not just a local issue. It is a national issue, which involves land use, development of our natural resources, our national economy and how this nation is going to confront the environmental challenges of the 21st century. If anti-mining advocates are able to halt this project, the future of every new natural resource project in this nation will be in jeopardy. Efforts to halt the Rosemont copper project are the line in the sand, which must not be crossed. And the U.S. mining industry is prepared to everything within its power to make sure the Rosemont copper project becomes a reality. Our nation’s future depends on it.
Our prosperity and that of future generations demands that we do more to provide for our own needs and reduce our reliance on foreign goods. Large industrial projects like Rosemont Copper create new wealth, which is required for economic growth. They are capable of pumping tremendous amounts of capital into the communities where they operate.
According to a recent independent study published by the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources and Arizona State University, the Rosemont copper project will result in an annual economic benefit to Pima and Santa Cruz counties of $745 million. This amounts to nearly $15 billion over the twenty year life of the operation. It will also result in the creation of 2,000 new jobs for our community. This study also shows that there will also be an increase in the economic activity in the area even after production at the mine has ceased. Even five years after the end of production at the mine, economic activity in Pima and Santa Cruz counties will be greater by $75 million and resident’s income will be higher by $37 million than if the Rosemont Copper project had never existed.
Although it appears that we have won this round, there will be many more before this issue will be satisfactorily resolved in our favor. Rosemont Copper's supporters have done a very good job and should be congratulated for all of their hard work, but we must remain ever vigilant and immediately respond to any action our opposition might attempt to halt this project. Keep up the good work. We can win this one. I will look forward to seeing you at the public meetings on the proposed Rosemont copper project on Saturday.
2. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— October 23,2009 @ 12:46AM
Ratings:-42+25
Many mining critics claim the General Mining Law of 1872 is antiquated and has never been updated. However, U.S. Constitution is much older, being initially adopted in 1787. Why is there no one demanding that it also be scrapped and replaced? Oh, wait a minute. It has been updated over the years through the passage of 27 Amendments.
Like the U.S. Constitution, the General Mining Law of 1872 has also been updated numerous times since its inception. This law was revised in 1920, 1955, 1976 and again in 1993-1994. These changes have been significant in that regulatory authority on federal land management has been increased as has revenues paid to the government to operate on federal lands. Furthermore, the U.S. metals mining industry operates under the highest level of environmental regulation in the world, which include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, as well as numerous other federal, state and local regulations. It is our domestic mining industry's compliance with these laws, which makes its domestic operations some of the most environmentally and socially responsible mining projects in the world.
3. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— October 23,2009 @ 1:03AM
Ratings:-45+24
Considering the state of our economy, you would think that U.S. Representatives Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva would be looking for constructive ways to put our citizens back to work instead of trying to halt a project that will create 2,000 new jobs and bring nearly $15 billion in economic benefits to our community over the next twenty years. In opposing the Rosemont copper project and other proposed mining operations in the area, U.S. Representatives Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva have effectively stated that jobs offered by these projects as well as many additional jobs that would indirectly result from this activity, are neither wanted nor needed by the Tucson community.
U.S. Representatives Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva, it is time that you do something positive to help put the citizens of our community back to work or your constituents just might hand you your pink slips in November 2010.
4. Comment by Jeffrey H. (flibber)— October 23,2009 @ 1:21AM
Ratings:-43+27
Let's see: Don't mine. Don't drill for oil. Don't harvest trees. Don't build homes. Tax and regulate to death all industry. Shrink or eliminate private autos. Carbon tax our electricity. When our population lives as people in the third world lives, and they live the way we do now, the Libs and their media supporters will finally be happy. Maybe.
5. Comment by scott w. (rivers2BX)— October 23,2009 @ 4:44AM
Ratings:-22+35
The 1872 law, enacted before many western states were even states, is beyond due to be fully updated to meet contemporary legal and social realities. The Forest Service is correct when they maintain they have few options. This is a congressional issue that Grijalva and Giffords need to continue to address. Funny that conservatives are so free to still want to give away public resources at below-market rates to the extraction industries, and let the public continue to subsidize both the infrastructure, and then often the added costs of cleanup later. The benefits of boom and bust industries such as mining are not worth the public costs, and the damage to vital watersheds and water resources.
6. Comment by scott w. (rivers2BX)— October 23,2009 @ 5:00AM
Ratings:-18+36
#4 No one is saying to not mine or harvest our resources. Many environmental groups have come around to seeing the benefits of responsible tree harvesting, ranching, etc. What is objected to is the irresponsible, wasteful way in which supposedly sustainable resources such as fisheries and forests have been trashed with no regard to the long-term health of the resource. That our public resources have been often sold at below-market rates to private companies, with the added insult of widespread damage and clean-up that the public also has to pay for needs to change. Mining, drilling, etc. need to reflect the realities of an increasingly crowded world. The true costs, environmental, economic, and social, of extraction industries need to be finally put forward before the public. Short-term, boom and bust economic benefits are not the way to make our economy healthy.
7. Comment by Wayne B. (rain)— October 23,2009 @ 5:05AM
Ratings:-19+36
4. Comment by Jeffrey H. (flibber)
Let's see: Don't mine
Many Rosemont mine opponents are not just saying don't mine but have valid concerns about this mine using up the water supply, tainting the Tucson area water supply, damaging nearby flora and fauna, chicanery by the mine company, concerns about the copper being sold overseas and more.
Those who seem to think all Rosemont mine opponents are people against mining, or are just liberals, are either flat wrong or just pretending.
8. Comment by wit w. (Wit)— October 23,2009 @ 5:42AM
Ratings:-15+35
Chris tells us how good the mine will be for us and then interjects a "we've got you, sucker, using your own laws against you" statement.
The mine is good only for a few individuals who own it and will work there over a historically very short time. Most of them aren't even from this area and will leave when the mine bankrupts.
9. Comment by Elizabeth W. (TVC)— October 23,2009 @ 6:26AM
Ratings:-13+19
Has anyone stopped to consider that the FS's incompetence in this matter is merely a smokescreen to offer people who care about the environment (to include the human environment)a stronger chance when the lawsuits begin?
10. Comment by Elizabeth W. (TVC)— October 23,2009 @ 6:30AM
Ratings:-17+25
Chris H,
I mean this in all sincerity. You have to get a life. This whole process will probably take a minimum of ten years to play out. It cannot be good for you to be here nearly 24/7.
13. Comment by Elizabeth W. (TVC)— October 23,2009 @ 6:53AM
Ratings:-8+15
Duh!
I got it now! uDuh Too early for me. GOing to work on my wall when I wake up.
14. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— October 23,2009 @ 6:56AM
Ratings:-27+14
To Elizabeth (10)
I think about that alot. I'm not being paid to participate in these forums and I currently have work from paying clients that has been temporarily placed on the back burner.
However, the issues involved here are so vitally important for the future of the mining industry and our nation, that I think that any time I spend here is well worth any personal sacrifice I make.
16. Comment by Elizabeth W. (TVC)— October 23,2009 @ 7:09AM
Ratings:-10+16
14. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) — October 23,2009 @ 6:56AM -
Something I have heard quite a bit recently is "in case of an emergency, put your oxygen mask on first and then help others"
Anyhow, have a good one!
17. Comment by Jefferson C. (commandermarcos)— October 23,2009 @ 7:12AM
Ratings:-26+16
I am once again posting from out of the country (Mexico this time) - as the regulatory and political pressures on US mines have basically driven the exploration business offshore.
Rosemont opponents must not be dismissed, to be sure. But of course they aren't being dismissed. Far from it: reps Grijalva and Giffords have pulled political strings to force the NFS to reconsider it's technical decision in favor of the rosemont Plan of Operations.
I would say rather:
The technical decisions of the NFS, which are disinterested and err in favor of the environment, should not be dismissed. The NFS has not found environmental reasons to stop the mine.
And - the opinion of people like me, who work in the industry, should not be dismissed. To often, they are - I am considered to be defending my own greedy self-interest, even though I have zero connection with Rosemont.
However, my 25 years in the industry make me more knowledgeable about how mines are developed and how the business works than many local residents who oppose the mine. Dismissing my opinions, or the well informed posts of Chris Horquilla, as so many Rosemont opponents do, is sort of like excluding doctors and nurses from the health care debate.
18. Comment by Joseph C. (Arafel)— October 23,2009 @ 7:12AM
Ratings:-16+12
"To do less than a thorough, complete review of all options would be a disservice to the public."
What do the editors mean by "all options"?
Looking at all options could take forever and is really nothing more than a tactic to forever delay the permitting of the mine.
The editors should lay out what specific options they think should be looked at.
19. Comment by Bill S. (Bill Smith)— October 23,2009 @ 7:17AM
Ratings:-11+15
I am not sure what the Arizona Daily is thinking with their opinion, but it sure looks like there is far more pressure from the opposition than from the mining industry.
20. Comment by Joseph C. (Arafel)— October 23,2009 @ 7:17AM
Ratings:-18+11
re: 9. Comment by Elizabeth W. (TVC)
From all indications the Forest Service is not doing anything legally wrong; therefore trying to place hope in a lawsuit against them is just wishful thinking.
21. Comment by Bree H. (Bree H)— October 23,2009 @ 7:27AM
Ratings:-13+24
#7 is right on.
Most of us are NOT against mining, but against this particular mine. We want the mountains in our immediate back yards, including the Santa Ritas, Rincons, Catalinas, left alone, given their importance to us for recreation, environmental health and aesthetics. There's nothing wrong with that.
Mining advocates are motivated by profits for a corporation (jobs tend to be raised by them as a red herring, but the quality and number of jobs is simply not that impressive).
And while there's nothing wrong with making money in a capitalistic society, in a democracy, the public good as endorsed by the majority of those affected ought to trump the profits of a few.
Especially, when those few are not American.
Rosemont is shaking us down on account of a law that was put into place when the population in the Western U.S. was negligible and its interests not a factor in mining decisions. The playing field has obviously changed and we all need to ensure that our government makes decisions accordingly.
22. Comment by wit w. (Wit)— October 23,2009 @ 7:28AM
Ratings:-12+16
re: 14. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)
issues involved here are so vitally important for the future of the mining industry and our nation
Are there U.S. mining companies destroying the land in Canada ? If so, is Rosemont happening because some U.S. mining companies are trying to have the U.S. government appease the Canadians by letting a Canadian company do the same here ?
23. Comment by Jefferson C. (commandermarcos)— October 23,2009 @ 7:47AM
Ratings:-17+12
Wit -
Don't count on U.S. mining companies to supply your resource needs. There aren't enough of them left: only 1 viable copper mining company (Freeport) and 1 large viable gold company (Newmont).
U.S. mining companies have had many Canadian mines in the past. They have been held to Canadian mining standards just like any domestic Canadian company, and have not met with public opposition because they are American. The Canadian public understands better than the U.S. public the benefits of foreign investment in domestic mining.
24. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— October 23,2009 @ 8:12AM
Ratings:-24+11
To Wit W (22)
The U.S. imports approximately 2.5 million barrels of oil per day from Canada, of which about 1.25 billion barrels per day are dervived from large open pits (tar sands) in northern Alberta. I would say that America's glutenous appetite for oil is destroying large chucks of Canadian wilderness everyday.
25. Comment by Jo M. (jm)— October 23,2009 @ 8:26AM
Ratings:-11+22
#23
So how many copper mines does Freeport own and operate and how many are located in southern Arizona...and how many of them including New Mexico , are partially or entirely shut down at present, awaiting a higher copper price?
There is no shortage of copper and demand only remains high in China at present.
We do not need --or want another polluting, water sucking copper mine in southern Arizona!
26. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— October 23,2009 @ 8:36AM
Ratings:-25+10
Nearly 75% of the nation's domestic copper production is derived from southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico and there are some who want to halt all mine production and new mine development in this region. It simply does not make any sense.
27. Comment by Paul C. (NativeRat)— October 23,2009 @ 8:58AM
Ratings:-7+13
[This comment has been removed]
28. Comment by David B. (David F Briggs)— October 23,2009 @ 9:09AM
Ratings:-16+8
Several months ago, I submitted this editorial to the Arizona Daily Star, who subsequently decided not to publish it. In light of the current debate, I feel that it is now time to make this editorial public.
Although this editorial deals with the subject of oil, many of the same issues also apply to the mining industry with respect to it being denied access to our public lands and the impact these restrictions have had on our nation's ability to produce more of the products we require to be self-sufficient. I know some of you will not like the message contained within this editorial, but it is time that all Americans wake up and take a good look in a mirror to see what we have become and the impact our self-serving decisions have had on some members of our community.
Here is the editorial:
Do You Really Support Our Troops?
By David F. Briggs
Over the last several decades, American society has become increasingly dependent on foreign sources for energy, raw materials and manufactured goods. Our chief desire is that nothing disrupts our access to these products or deny us an unlimited line of credit we require to maintain our high standard of living. Satisfying this desire has become one of the chief goals of our leaders in Washington, who accomplish this task through the passage of legislation at home and the pursuit of imperialistic policies abroad.
Although America’s foreign policy objectives have been commonly accomplished through diplomatic means, military force has been increasingly used to achieve our goals. Our foreign policies with regard to the Middle East provide an excellent example of what I am talking about. Ever since the declaration of the Carter Doctrine in January 1980 and the Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine in October 1981, our political leaders have vowed to use any means necessary, including military force, to defend our national security interests in the Persian Gulf. In making these proclamations, our leaders clearly stated in no uncertain terms that these national interests were the presence of more than two thirds of the world’s exportable oil reserves in this region and that it was our nation’s reliance on foreign sources for petroleum, which made these policies necessary. Since that time, our nation’s involvement in the affairs of these countries has only increased, ultimately leading to our use of military power in this region on numerous occasions since 1990. Our involvement in the Persian Gulf has not only been done at a tremendous expense to the American taxpayer, but more importantly has resulted in the shattered lives and needless deaths of thousands of our brave troops, who will remain deployed throughout this region for many years in the future as a result of these policies.
Our political leaders have recognized America’s increasing reliance on foreign oil since the early 1970's, but have repeatedly failed to take any meaningful steps to resolve this important issue. Even more disturbing, our leaders, beholden to special interest groups for political campaign contributions, have erected barriers that significantly impair our ability to supply our energy needs from domestic sources. Continued adherence of these misguided policies will only further weaken our nation’s economic and national security.
If Americans support our troops as they say they do, it is going to have to be more than just a few words or putting a bumper sticker on your car. If Americans really want to show support for our troops, we must make the personal sacrifices required to live within our means and demand that our leaders institute policies designed to make our nation more self-sufficient. Maybe then no American soldier will ever again be sent to fight and die in a foreign land in order to perpetuate unsustainable flaws in the American way of life.
29. Comment by Renee R. (renrb7)— October 23,2009 @ 9:11AM
Ratings:-8+9
[This comment has been removed]
30. Comment by Thomas C. (Copperhead)— October 23,2009 @ 9:13AM
Ratings:-18+8
"This is lock-step bureaucratic obscuration"
The only thing the above statement describes is what our state and local representatives are doing in this process. The DOA is doing their best to follow the LAW. They are not attempting to interpret the law, they are simply following it. Since when is following the laws of this counrty obscuration? Our reporesentatives had a chance when Augusta first bought Rosemont to introduce legislation to change the existing law. They chose to drag their feet and do other things. Don't blame the DOA for doing their jobs, blame your legislators for not doing theirs.
If it wasn't for enviro-extremist views and lobbing, it is highly likely that the laws would have been altered years ago. But because many federal representatives believe they need to incorporate the views of these extremist fringe groups into legislation, attempts to change it have been stalled every time.
Laws are not to be "intrepreted" by DOA and shouldn't be (but are) by activits judges. Laws are made in our legislature, if you want to place blame, aim it toward the correct entity.
31. Comment by Thomas C. (Copperhead)— October 23,2009 @ 9:30AM
Ratings:-23+11
#27 Paul,
IMO, the majority of local residents in Arizona are for this mine. It is only a vocal minority like yourself that are against it. The selfish interests of the minority are standing in the way of southern Arizona realizing a very positive impact to the economy. The Rosemont area is no differnt than the area the areas one range to the south and east. It is not the "Yellowstone-esk" area you make it out to be. Just because you have an emotional attachment to the area doesn't mean that the public should be denied the benefit of mining the area.
Why cant you understand that world class near surface ore deposits in the US are quite literally endangered species. When one is found, it should be exploited at all cost because it is highly unlikely that one will ever be found again. Economic mineral/metal deposits aren't like air, they don't exist everwhere. Though people like you think that we should go mine somewhere where else, the reality is that ore deposits can be moved to "better" locations. So sacrifices must be made when it comes to sustaining the lifestyle you have grown accustomed to. The not so scenic Rosemont area, nearly out of view of the public is a great place for a mine and the fact that there is a world class ore body located there makes it even better. Emotional attachments aside, Paul, it is time to face reality or give up your comfortable lifestyle.
34. Comment by Don T. (onetribble)— October 23,2009 @ 9:38AM
Ratings:-19+13
The "facts" that the opponents of Rosemont keep repeating are often false and at best foolish!
First- The "antiquated" mining law they keep complaining about! It was/is designed to get people willing to risk "their money" exploring for and exploiting the mineral deposits found on or adjacent to public lands. We don't see many of the opponents spending their money to change the law or "buy-up" land to keep it lying fallow!
Second- 18-20 years of economic "boom" is a lot better than a million years of NOTHING! 18-20 years is whole generation folks! A miner who has a child the first year he/she works at Rosemont could still be employed there when the child graduates high school! There are lots of jobs in Tucson/Pima County that don't offer that much security; frankly, most don't!
Third- If this community allows the Rosemont management to "destroy and pollute" the environment around the mine site, then shame on us all! The laws and regulatory mechanisms to force them to be good stewards while using public lands are in place! It is up to us all to make them obey them and honor their contracts with the community!!!!
Fourth- The copper coming out of this mine will be sold for the greatest available profit! These mine developers are in business to make as much money as possible and if selling to China or India is more profitable than American markets, then so be it! I personally don't see that happening when we are importing more than 20% of US needs for copper! #25 needs to do some homework about copper supply and demand!
Fifth- Some of you opponents (#'s 8,9, 10,12,13,15,16) use disparaging personal attacks with the ADS's approval and refuse to look at or listen to anyone else's opinions or the true facts of the entire story. MOST opponents are using their "feelings" to guide their discussion of this complex issue. They refuse to see both sides of the problem!
Six- Our "Honorable Congresspersons", Raul and Gabby, have done nothing to enhance our communities economic development and are publicly opposing the largest assortment of new jobs to be brought to Pima County in years! Try to understand that it will not only be Rosemont employees who will get new jobs, but that many local companies will benefit from doing increased business with the new mine!
35. Comment by Joseph C. (Arafel)— October 23,2009 @ 9:38AM
Ratings:-18+11
29. Comment by Renee R. (renrb7)
"Chris, your comments are repetitive and boring. Does it ever occur to you to give others an opportunity to comment first, or is that part of your job description?"
I find his post to be the more interesting and informed ones.
As to letting others comment first; everyone can comment to their heart's desire. He is not trying to silence anyone as you are attempting to silence him.
He is a free as anyone else to post comments.
I await your admonishment of all the posters who repeat the same comments opposing the mine.
36. Comment by KELLY P. (KELLYAZ0203)— October 23,2009 @ 9:51AM
Ratings:-8+16
If you go to the US Forest Service web site and navigate to their mission statement it seems a "no action" is well within their scope, irregardless of mining laws. It appears mining laws and forest service mission statements are in conflict.
37. Comment by Paul C. (NativeRat)— October 23,2009 @ 10:08AM
Ratings:-9+19
Copperhead. First, you shouldn't presume to know anything about my lifestyle or background. Second, I'm glad you used the word "sacrifice" and acknowledge that the mine would sacrifice, permanently, a part of the Santa Ritas and our public lands. I guess you do get it at some level. But what do you think gives you the right to tell me or anyone in this community that we "must" make sacrifices for a foreign company to tear up our mountains and dump on our forests? And don't tell me it is because one interpretation of the letter of the law allows it. You know as well as I that what is "legal" and what is "right" are two distinct concepts.
38. Comment by Joseph C. (Arafel)— October 23,2009 @ 10:14AM
Ratings:-17+5
re: 36. Comment by KELLY P. (KELLYAZ0203)
A few points.
"...it seems..."
Can you be less sure of what you read in their mission statement.
"irregardless" is not a proper word. It's just regardless.
If you have solid evidence of a conflict between mining laws and the forest service mission statements will you please post such evidence?
However, the Forest Service mission statement may not be the source of its legal authority to act in this circumstance.
I would suggest getting better informed about the statutory and regulatory parameters that they operate under.
39. Comment by KELLY P. (KELLYAZ0203)— October 23,2009 @ 10:24AM
Ratings:-7+20
You can't have good, sound environmental policy if mining (for minerals, gas or oil) trumps all other uses of public land.
this is why National Monuments,and wilderness preserves were established. In addition to stopping mineral exploration in such sensitive areas it has stopped land developers and to a great extent land speculators. I'm not against the economic development of this community. The go ahead for this project would stop all other uses (mostly recreational) for the public lands.
[This discusses logging, put it also applies to mining, and what is the 'best use' for important watershed areas, and steep slopes. Rosemont Mine, is NOT the "best use" of an important watershed area in the desert, a recreational and tourist area, and enriching viewshed of much of the community.]
Forest watersheds provide timber and water, wildlife and fisheries habitat, and recreational opportunities. However, not an entire watershed is equally suited for each activity. Steeper slopes may be better left forested and used for wildlife habitat, while more gentle slopes of the watershed could be used for timber production. Logging steep slopes can lead to soil erosion that can seriously degrade stream water quality and reduce long-term site productivity.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) are forest practices designed to minimize negative environmental impacts caused by human forest use [i.e. many square miles of destroying mine activity of all kinds] . The difficulty in developing BMPs arise when multiple objectives (e.g., improved timber production, water quality, and recreation) are applied to a single watershed.
The objective of this research was to maintain long-term stream water quality, fisheries, and timber productivity, while minimizing soil erosion and negative water quality impacts associated with forest management.
44. Comment by John B. (StarNet online editor)— October 23,2009 @ 11:28AM
Ratings:-8+6
Readers, stick to the topic and avoid personal attacks.
Those who violate our guidelines may lose their privilege to post.
Those who report comments in such a way as to silence dissenting opinions will lose their privileges.
45. Comment by Bob L. (Tubabob)— October 23,2009 @ 11:34AM
Ratings:-16+6
And just who are you scolding, Mr. John B.StarNet online editor. You and your organization must be aware that this it THE hot-button topic in the immediate area. There have been other topics that you have not provided the opportunity to post comments about. Maybe the Rosemont topic should be one of those!
46. Comment by KELLY P. (KELLYAZ0203)— October 23,2009 @ 11:36AM
Ratings:-7+13
U.S. Forest Service Reg CFR 228 subpart a reads,: Regulation of mining activities is triggered by the degree of surface disturbance associated with the proposed mineral activities. Any activity that "will likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources" means that based on experience, direct evidence, or sound projection, reasonably expects that the proposed operations would result in impacts which more probably than not need to be AVOIDED, or ameliorated....
I capitalized the word "avoided" to emphasize the "no action" option.
48. Comment by David B. (David F Briggs)— October 23,2009 @ 11:46AM
Ratings:-11+9
To John B (44)
Thank you for restoring my comment (25).
I know this is a hard issue for some of you to deal with, but the future of America is at stake here and if we don't do something to change the way we live our dependence on foreign products will destroy this nation.
49. Comment by KELLY P. (KELLYAZ0203)— October 23,2009 @ 11:58AM
Ratings:-6+11
World wide demand for copper is down significantly right now due to the recession (I'm sure it will bounce back).My point is that China is buying copper and other metals right now as an investment and alternative to buying U.S. debt, which is becoming worthless.
The value of the dollar has the Chinese reeling.
50. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 23,2009 @ 12:15PM
Ratings:-8+10
Hey, all you Rosemont lovers, that claim Bush didn't destroy environmental protections -- then read below and weep -- these are our some of our environmental protection laws that should apply to any mine today, including Rosemont. THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAYS MINING TRUMPS 'ALL,' AND THAT IT CAN'T BE DENIED. U.S. Forest Service
bq. The agency itself was created from two federal entities. Beginning in 1891, forested public domain lands were set aside by presidential proclamation in order to reduce destructive logging and preserve watersheds.
On February 1, 1905, the USDA Forest Service was established within the Department of Agriculture. The agency was given a unique mission: to sustain healthy, diverse, and productive forests and grasslands for present and future generations. From the earliest days of the agency, the U.S. Forest Service has kept forest management as a primary focus.
Policies for wildlife management in the Forest Service have evolved over time. Aldo Leopold laid the foundation for wildlife management while working for the agency from 1909 to 1924. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires the Forest Service to conduct its planning to ensure a diversity of plant and animal species.
The National Forest Management Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to evaluate forest lands, develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System.
The Forest Service employs 30,000 people and manages the national forests for a number of uses, including recreation, timber, wilderness, minerals, water, grazing, fish and wildlife.
1891 - This utilitarian vision of western water also shaped the passage of the Forest Reserve Act in 1891, and Vale reconstructs how nineteenth-century bureaucrats perceived the interrelation ships between watershed protection, forest resources, and agricul ture.
The Multiple Use - Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (or MUSYA) (Public Law 86-527) is a federal law passed by the US Congress on June 12, 1960. This law authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and administer the renewable resources of timber, range, water, recreation and wildlife on the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services.
This is the first law to have the five major uses of national forests contained in one law equally, with no use greater than any other. + [MINING ISN'T INCLUDED!]+
By the 1950s, the national forests no longer held enough resources to meet the growing needs of an increasing population and expanding economy. The Forest Service had operated within broad authorities since Gifford Pinchot's time as Chief Forester. Now, for the first time the agency had a specific congressional directive which stipulated that economic return was not in all cases to be the limiting factor.
NFMA substantially enacted detailed guidance for forest plans, particularly in regulating when, where, and how much timber could be harvested and in requiring public involvement in preparing and revising the plans. Also, NFMA established and expanded several Forest Service trust funds and special accounts. It reorganized and expanded the 1974 Act, requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands, and develop and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System. These plans required alternative land management options to be presented, each of which have potential resource outputs (timber, range, mining, recreation) as well as socio-economic effects on local communities.[Other "resources:" important water shed in a desert area, and long term (generational) tourist draw if the Santa Ritas's aren't mined -- Tourism being a major socol-economic benefit to this area.]
[THIS IS THE MAJOR LAW THAT SAYS MINING DOES NOT TRUMP ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS]
The law includes two primary sections:
The national environmental policy
Action-forcing provisions that ensure that agencies consider the national environmental policy in their decision making process.
bq. The law establishes the national environmental policy, including a multidisciplinary approach to considering environmental effects in federal government agency decision making. The law also established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
The definition of actions requiring the EIS includes "major federal actions significantly affecting the human environment." Thus, before implementing any "major" or "significant" or "federal" action, the agency must consider the environmental impacts of that action, identify unavoidable environmental impacts and make this information available to the public in the EIS. All these conditions must be satisfied before implementing the proposed action.
Congress intended to have NEPA put environmental concerns on par with economic motivations and technological feasibility when making a decision that could affect the environment. Hydrological/geological, biological/ecological, social and health are among the consequences considered. More recently, archeological, historical, cultural impact analyses, and financial management plans for an action have been added to the EIS process.
Overview
The mission of the Forest Service is "To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations." Its motto is "Caring for the land and serving people."
51. Comment by tom c. (NoShillZone)— October 23,2009 @ 12:22PM
Ratings:-7+11
A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists. The term plant is also used.
Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions1 because of the frequently fraudulent and damaging character of their actions. However, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates "buzz", the shill's actions may be legal. For example, a person planted in an audience to laugh and applaud when desired (see claque), or to participate in on-stage activities as a "random member of the audience", is a type of legal shill.
"Shill" can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit "shill" for the industry at large, possibly because their income is tied to its prosperity.
54. Comment by Thomas C. (Copperhead)— October 23,2009 @ 12:44PM
Ratings:-13+9
Sukie and Kelly, the best most pertanent use of public land where an economic deposit of minerals exists should in nearly all cases be mining. Certainly there are exceptions for places that derserve it like Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Glacier National....etc. The Rosemont area is not a place that I would put into that catagory.
However, public lands with economic mineral deposits don't always end up mines. Case in point Grand Escalante Staircase, Ironwood National, Denali National, and the new 1 million acre buffer north of GCNP....I'm sure that there are plenty more examples than these four off the top of my head.
55. Comment by Joseph B. (jberring)— October 23,2009 @ 1:06PM
Ratings:-9+14
Just to be clear Thomas C. (Copperhead):
I have worked in open pit copper mines here in Southern Arizona. I have been through all the MSHA training. Hence, I think I am entitled to my opinion since I am speaking from long personal experience.
The issues of safety and working conditions are real and significant. Countless times have I had to be sure that I was safe in open pit mines and that my little, tiny 1-ton truck was out of the way of the 600-ton haul truck (vehicle & ore combined) with 12-foot diameter tires that was coming down the mine road at 50 MPH engulfed in a dust cloud with a driver trying to navigate with blind spots that extended 200 feet from his little cab two stories in the air - not a complaint, just a statement of fact to illustrate reality.
The MSHA “fatalgrams” are real. Everybody in mining knows this. Mining is dangerous work. People die. People get hurt. The conditions are harsh. This goes for open pit, aggregate, strip and underground mining. This is a real issue for anyone considering entering the field. Your attempt to minimize these realities is disingenuous and does no one any good.
As to misleading opinions on my part or what my true intentions are, we simply don’t know each other well enough for you be able to make any kind of a factual statement in this regard.
Personally, I support mining, proper stewardship of our nation’s resources, economic development and prosperity. After reading all of the arguments, the proposals, the financial models and the applications submitted, I have concluded that I am simply against this particular mine.
The other problem is that you and other proponents of Rosemont are trying to convince everyone that the mine will be a big part of the solution to our region’s economic problems. It will not and cannot. We need a broader, more diverse technology, trade and manufacturing base in Southern Arizona that adds value at all stages. This is the only way to prosperity.
The Rosemount Mine is a bad idea. It won’t create the economic prosperity that you and others claim.
On the other hand, you are fond of making personal (ad hominem) attacks rather than backing up your arguments with facts that can be objectively evaluated. Calling other people’s opinions “garbage” is immature and inappropriate.
Your Rare Earth argument is faulty. We do not decide where minerals are distributed in the Earth’s crust. If there were RE elements readily available in the United States, I guarantee we would be harvesting them and someone would be making a fortune.
Copper, moly, silver and other commodities are determined by world spot and futures markets. I personally have seen moly basically sitting on the ground in mines near Tucson because the price didn’t justify picking it up and moving it. May not be the case now, but has been in the recent past.
Other local mines are underperforming financially. Some of it is due to the grade of their ore. Some are nearing depletion. Some have suffered from mismanagement (my opinion). What is inescapable is that mining is cyclical. There are no guarantees. At the start of a new mine, all the proponents make any promises to anybody they have to in order to get approval.
20 or 30 years later those promises are hard to keep. Remediation costs money, rules & laws change. Politicians and regulators come and go. Environmental damage is usually worse than expected. Business model didn’t work. Companies go bankrupt. Etc. It is cheaper to hire lawyers and lobbyists rather than stepping up to the plate and fixing what you agreed to in the first place. You don’t even have to leave Pima County to see clear examples of this.
Mining is not bad, it just follows a very predictable path.
Our efforts simply have to go into something more sustainable that creates broader economic benefits for all Arizonans.
Incidentally, I agree with your comments on the Gem Show and spring training. Can’t build an economy around those either.
Now if we had a professional sports team, more high tech manufacturing, world class logistics, better schools, etc. then we would have something to talk about….
56. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— October 23,2009 @ 1:24PM
Ratings:-15+7
To Joseph B (55)
You state in comment #55, that "We need a broader, more diverse technology, trade and manufacturing base in Southern Arizona that adds value at all stages. This is the only way to prosperity"
While we do need to broaden our industrial base here in Arizona, eliminating mining or refusing to allow the development of newer mines to replace those nearing the end of their productive lifes, only narrows our industrial base. It does not widen it.
57. Comment by Joseph C. (Arafel)— October 23,2009 @ 1:33PM
Ratings:-12+8
re: 50. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
How do these forestry regulations relate to the issue of MINING?
The argument is not about the impact of forest harvesting impacting the watershed and therefore nothing cited effects the mineral claim and process for the permitting of a mine.
Moreover, can anyone truly say that a forestry resource exist on the land in question?
58. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— October 23,2009 @ 1:48PM
Ratings:-14+9
Vilsack is correct. A no action option is illegal and to try to change that would be retroactive on not just this mine and industry but many others including ranching and logging.
Contrary to the constant yammer that the Rosemont area is environmentally sensitive, it is in fact an area that has be mined and ranched for over 150 years. The trees were cut out for fence lines, smelter fuel and fireplaces. Before the closure of accss to the main rosemont property, on any sunny weekend the area humed and roared with off road vehicles as dust hovered over the valley.
It is of great importance to note the Pima County Board of Supervisors (BOS) at the direction of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP) committee leader Dr. Maeveen Behan, Deputy Director of Natural Resources of the Pima County Parks and Recreation Department as well as Professor at the University of Arizona and Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, refused to purchase the land. This decision was made after a full SDCP study and review of the Rosemont area including the aquifer importance and watershed value. This aquisition was refused with the full knowledge that the deposit would likely be mined in the future if the BOS didn’t purchase the parcel.
The Rosemont mine orebody should be placed in production with the support of Vilsack. When economic deposits are found in areas with low environmenal value, the environmental community must support their development or be labeled obsructionist.
If we do this then when we oppose mines in pristine areas of high environmental value we can point to these mines and say, we support and promote development there, but leave the last unspoiled places alone.
59. Comment by Elizabeth W. (TVC)— October 23,2009 @ 1:51PM
Ratings:-7+8
Lunchtime!
IS there anyone who truly enjoys low sodium, low salt soup?!? bleh
Anyhow,
55. Comment by Joseph B. (jberring) —
Now if we had a professional sports team, more high tech manufacturing, world class logistics, better schools, etc. then we would have something to talk about
You betcha! Kinda hard to attract those things when there is a HUGEEEEE lack of recreational/entertainment opportunities for familes of said professionals.
61. Comment by Elizabeth W. (TVC)— October 23,2009 @ 2:05PM
Ratings:-5+10
What the heck? If you can't beat 'em, join em.
______________________________
August B. (EcoRealist)
If you really know from the bond stuff then you also know Rosemont Ranch was not on "the list" for purchase with 2004 funds. The Committee makes the decision as to what makes the "list" based on a large variety of factors.
Taxpayers and voters would have thrown a fit if it had been purchased with bond money back then as it was not on the voter package.
I can't speak for the reason it didn't make the list (although I have some insight) but from my experience projects are also guaged on risk basis. There was not water for a mine then and there isn't water for a mine now so it would have been a lower risk.
Interestingly enough one of the members of Rosemont Ranch LLC/Triangle Ventures who sold the Rosemont Ranch to Augusta Resources was sitting on the bond committee when the property was sold. The same person still sits on the Committee.
The Ranch did not make the 2004 bond list but it did make the 2010 list. (previously the 2008 bond)
62. Comment by Joe j. (We Be Tucson)— October 23,2009 @ 2:07PM
Ratings:-8+13
#1. Chris J., you again forgot to mention the study published by the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources and Arizona State University was paid for by Rosemont. In the past others have reminded you of this important detail, so I will now remind you again. The study was bought and paid for by Rosemont and it is said loyalty lays with those who sign the check.
Later, I'm going out doors to enjoy this beautiful afternoon.
63. Comment by Elizabeth W. (TVC)— October 23,2009 @ 2:14PM
Ratings:-6+10
My goodness, apparently there has been a bit of an issue over the letter sent by Secretary Vilsack's staff to the GVCC.
And I quote
"The Forest Service is reviewing the issues surrounding the Rosemont Project as part of its obligation under the National Environmental Policy Act. As part of that review, the Forest Service is examining both the proposed mine and the no-action alternative"
He also apologizes and takes full responsibility for the letter that was mistakenly sent to the GVCC.
64. Comment by Bill S. (Bill Smith)— October 23,2009 @ 2:21PM
Ratings:-8+6
62.
I would caution the remarks concerning the states educational resources.
I personally have been involved in many UA projects, here in Tucson, and no matter the project they demand their money up front with no strings attached to the outcome.
Anyone doing any higher education studies can tell you that, you may not like the outcome but to them it is not a personality contest. You get the answer and nothing else.
65. Comment by Thomas C. (Copperhead)— October 23,2009 @ 2:35PM
Ratings:-11+7
#62 Joe, come on......we are talking about a world renouned business school (WP Carey School of Business). They aren't about to risk their reputation to please a local entity paying a paltry $40K for an ecomic study. There is no real basis for your comments.
67. Comment by Thomas C. (Copperhead)— October 23,2009 @ 2:49PM
Ratings:-11+7
Joeseph,
I know enough to know that your are making misleading statements about open pit mining. Just look at your next round. I know of no +300 ton haul truck (only ones that will match your 600 ton loaded claim) that can travel 50mph except for one that is out of control going down hill. There is also no way on this earth that a company would allow a loaded haul truck to go that fast even if it could. If you truly remember your MSHA and company haul truck training, you would have known that you are exaggerating.
Sure the safety issues are significant, but that doesn't justify your outlandish statements about mine fatalties. You go through a lot of training to keep people safe, why did you not mention that?
Promises are hard to keep in all industries, just wait for the next boom bust defense cycle for Raytheon, or the next boom bust cycle for tourism, or construction, or potentially DMAFB. All industries have their ups and downs, but mining has provided a stable economic base for the state since its inception and that seems like a pretty good record to me.
One last thing. My RE arguement is not faulty. The Mountain Pass RE deposit has been closed down since 2001 and although reschuled to open in 2011 it is not a sure thing. So I guess you should do a little homework before commenting on things you may not know as much as you think you do.
69. Comment by Bob L. (Tubabob)— October 23,2009 @ 3:04PM
Ratings:-8+7
Well, thank you, Elizabeth! By the way, low sodium soup isn't too bad, if one has access to either 1)hot sauce 2)a salt shaker, or 3) All of the above.
72. Comment by KELLY P. (KELLYAZ0203)— October 23,2009 @ 3:37PM
Ratings:-5+8
In regards to the the study published by the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources, not having any statements as to the negative impacts of mining was irresponsible, even if they found them to be minimal, the negative impacts should have been included in the study. It so biased that it makes one wonder.
73. Comment by kc r. (DPStillCensored)— October 23,2009 @ 3:38PM
Ratings:-6+10
Letter from Secretary Vilsack regarding the proposed Rosemont mine
I am forwarding a copy of the letter that Congresswoman Giffords received today from USDA Secretary Thomas Vilsack.
In the letter, Secretary Vilsack indicates that he was unsatisfied with the letter that staff prepared for the Green Valley Community Coordinating Council and he requested it be held until a thorough review of the issue had been completed. He regrets that the letter was mistakenly sent before that review was done.
The Secretary’s letter goes on to say that the Forest Service will examine the no action alternative in its review of the Augusta mine plan of operation and that no decision will be made until they have completed a thorough review of the mine plan of operation and any required mitigation.
Also significant is the secretary’s statement that Deputy Under Secretary Jay Jensen will “review the actions that the Forest Service has taken to date with respect to the proposed mine.”
Congresswoman Giffords is pleased to have received the Secretary’s clarification about the application of the no action alternative and that he will be reviewing the actions the Forest Service has taken to date.
Please share this letter with others who are interested in this matter.
<<Vilsack letter to GG.pdf>>
Ron Barber
District Director
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords
74. Comment by Thomas C. (Copperhead)— October 23,2009 @ 4:05PM
Ratings:-11+6
The real opinion of the DOA was the first one, this is just a little CYA by them now that some higher level congresswoman (i.e. Ms. Pelosi) is likely asserting her power of office on the Secretary of Ag (Mr. Vilsack's boss). At this point, it has been reduced to nothing more that political posturing. The law is still the law no matter how much power is asserted.
75. Comment by Joseph B. (jberring)— October 23,2009 @ 5:05PM
Ratings:-7+9
Thomas C. (Copperhead),
First, I posted my responses exactly where I wanted to. These are pertinent threads and the posting was appropriate independently of what you may think.
Second, I stand corrected. The haul truck speed was 40 MPH not 50 MPH (a case of fingers moving a little too fast on the keyboard).
Third, I am not making misleading statements. I am simply stating facts and following on with my assessment and opinion.
Lastly, I have no dog in this fight. I will not personally profit nor will my family no matter whether the mine succeeds or fails. I do have experience. I have researched the issues and have arrived at my conclusions based on the facts.
There is broad consensus that the mine does not make any sense. If the proponents did not require the use of public lands and did not pose a threat to groundwater, I probably would not even bother writing.
If they want to lose their money on their land then fine, it is none of my business. The problem is that significant costs are being shifted to society at large and for generations to come with no corresponding benefit. This is what makes the mine a bad idea.
The facts, stubborn little things that they are, remain facts.
Ultimately, my overarching point is that our time, effort and resources can and should be invested elsewhere that will have a greater impact and benefit to our economy and community.
On the other hand you seem myopically entangled in the issue and many have expressed dismay that you do not approach the situation objectively and feel the need to savage anyone with an opinion different than your own. A little maturity here would be appreciated.
As to RE, personally I would much rather see you put your efforts into making that a reality instead of backing such a poorly conceived venture like the Rosemont mine.
I did not say that China was the only place where RE elements exist. I am simply following on your comment about how most current RE production comes from China. I do agree that this is a problem that should be corrected if possible.
As a suggestion, you might consider that people that differ from you might have correct information and valid ideas. A little respect is in order. Such rabidity on your part tends to make folks take you less seriously….
76. Comment by David B. (David F Briggs)— October 23,2009 @ 5:41PM
Ratings:-10+5
Now that everyone has calmed down and my comment (#28) has been restored for everyone to read, lets take a close look at what I actually said.
First of all, I was not trying to place blame nor was I questioning anyone’s patriotism. I was talking about how legislation passed by governmental bodies to solve one problem, can and do result in serious unintended consequences. I was also talking about the influence special interest groups and their money have on legislation. That is why our elected officials first and foremost must represent the people’s interest, carefully to evaluate every piece of legislation being considered before actually passing it and be willing to made adjustments to legislation where it are needed.
Secondly, having an editorial of this type being written by an individual, who works in the natural resource industry may illicit a response that the only thing he is interested in is increasing domestic production of natural resources. However, increasing domestic production of natural resources is not the only thing our nation can do to become more self-sufficient. There are actually a number of other important ways to achieve this goal. In asking Americans to make sacrifices, I was referring to making an honest effort to reduce our personal consumption. Another way to achieve self-sufficiency is through conservation. This editorial shows no preference for one over the others.
If our nation is going to become more self-sufficient, no single method to achieve this goal is going to be successful. It is going to take some combination of methods. Unless we find some way to become more self-sufficient, we will never deduce our nation’s dependency on foreign imports and it will destroy our nation the same way similar excesses have doomed other civilizations over the span of history.
79. Comment by Bob L. (Tubabob)— October 23,2009 @ 6:21PM
Ratings:-10+3
The old 120 tonners that Duval Sierrita had during the early 70's would go into an emergency braking mode at just over 30 mph.If the operator was young and dumb(insert my picture here) he could just let them roll down the ramps, usually done during the evening hours, when it was harder to get caught. They would do the braking for you. Kids, don't try this at home.
80. Comment by NightHawk P. (NightHawk)— October 23,2009 @ 6:26PM
Ratings:-4+9
If taking trailings (white mineral laden paste) and waste rock. Then spread it out over 3,155 acres of the Coronado National Forest land. By their est. of 1,188,211,000 tons. Comes out to be around 376 million tons or so a acre. 173 cubic foot sq foot at 172 feet high. Has no effect on the forrest, water, wildlife I don't know what does. If destroying archaeological sites All cataloged and managed by the Arizona State Museum. Along with the Religious areas for American Indians and grave sites. With no regard to the Native American Graves and Protection Act has no effect I don't know what is is. To just destroy an area that should be set aside and was set aside for for all generations to enjoy forever just for the profit of a Company from Canada. If approved over the protests of the people living here may have a lasting effect on mining in this State forever.
82. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)— October 23,2009 @ 7:30PM
Ratings:-5+10
#21 - Bree........
Boy, I haven't heard this better stated.
Nobody is against capitolism, making a profit, etc. This is America, after all. But when this anitquated law could possibly result in ................
An open pit copper mine bigger than Bisbee's in the CATALINA mountains or the RINCON mountains, in plain sight AND which would deprive Tucsonans from fishing, camping, hiking, etc., and depleting Tucson's well water,it would not be tolerated.
When I was 5 years old, we camped and fished on Mt. Lemmon. Many still do. It's one of the most beautiful mountain ranges and we're lucky to have it in Tucson. Can you imagine seeing an open pit copper mine (the size of Bisbees) in plain view of all of Eastern Tucson? It would NOT be tolerated and Rosemont would NEVER get by with it.
Help us out here, Tucson. It could happen to you and it IS happening with YOUR water, if the Rosemont mine goes in.
84. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)— October 23,2009 @ 7:41PM
Ratings:-4+10
#34 - Don..........
Re: The "facts" that the opponents of Rosemont keep repeating are often false and at best foolish!
After reading this ridiculous statement, I didn't bother reading the rest of your post. EXTREMELY elementary. Those, who oppose the mine, could make such "foolish" statement (as you just have), but we don't stosop to that level.
86. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)— October 23,2009 @ 7:46PM
Ratings:-4+10
#38 - do you want us to pick apart YOUR grammar, spelling or punctuation? It could be easily done. Cut with your insulting remarks and stick to the subject.
87. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— October 23,2009 @ 7:47PM
Ratings:-11+4
With unemployment rates of 8.2% in Pima county and 17.2% in Santa Cruz county, you would think that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and Congressman Raul Grijalva would be looking for ways to put our community's citizens back to work. Yet they have opposed the Rosemont copper project and other proposed mining operations in the area effectively stating that jobs offered by these projects as well as many additional jobs that would indirectly result from this activity, are neither wanted nor needed by the Tucson community.
Tucson’s future prosperity is dependent on large projects of this type, which are capable of pumping massive amounts of capital into the communities, where they operate. And when done in compliance with strict federal, state and local laws and regulations, it will not cost the taxpayer a single dime.
Large mining projects of this type are capable of pumping massive amounts of capital into the communities, where they operate. According to a recent independent study published by the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources and Arizona State University, the Rosemont project will result in an annual economic benefit to Pima and Santa Cruz counties of $745 million over the twenty year life of the mine and will also create of 2,000 new jobs for our community.
88. Comment by Joe j. (We Be Tucson)— October 23,2009 @ 11:18PM
Ratings:-1+7
Four decades ago Pima County and Tucson's population was 300 thousand today the population is close to one million. One million water users. Water is a far more precious commodity in this desert city and will continue to be so in the future. As Tucson continues to grow there will be a greater impact on our water table. We don't need Rosemont pumping our ground water when toilet to tap is being forecast as an alternate water supply. Nor should CAP allotments have been handed over to Rosemont.
When I jog I carry water with me not copper. Tucson is the only city in the United States with a sole source aquifer. Deny the permit!
91. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 24,2009 @ 11:44AM
Ratings:-1+2
57. Comment by Joseph C. (Arafel) — October 23,2009 @ 1:33PM
Ratings: -12 +8
re: 50. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
How do these forestry regulations relate to the issue of MINING?
The argument is not about the impact of forest harvesting impacting the watershed and therefore nothing cited effects the mineral claim and process for the permitting of a mine.
Moreover, can anyone truly say that a forestry resource exist on the land in question?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
AUGUSTA WANTS TO USE OUR USFS LAND AS A DUMPING SITE, FOR THEIR FOREIGN BENEFIT -- AND USFS DIRECTIVE IS TO ALSO SAVE/KEEP PRISTINE THE WATERSHED AREAS -- THESE ARE THE AREAS ROSEMONT NOW PLANS TO FILL UP WITH HUGE MOUNDS OF MINE TAILINGS. TRY RE-READING WHAT I LINKED -- MAYBE A LIGHT OF COMPREHENSION WILL GO OFF THIS TIME.
We've added a feature to the comments pages - the ability to easily add paragraph breaks, boldface type and a few other typographical aids to your comments. Launch toolbar
Use single or double carriage returns to put line breaks or paragraph breaks in your comments.
At the same time, we removed the ability to put HTML coding into the comments. People were misusing that feature by pulling in cartoons, photos and other copyrighted materials from publications elsewhere. We won't allow you to use our pages to violate other publications' copyrights.
We've added a story to the site that includes a few tips to resolve common problems. You can use the comment thread attached to that story for practice and testing of the markup tools: Go to story | Go to the practice thread
General Instructions
Welcome to the story comments section of StarNet. Here are some helpful hints with you:
You must be logged in to comment or rate comments. Log in or create an account through our registration system.
All comments are subject to our guidelines (listed below) and our user agreement.
Comment Reporting
You can report other users' comments that are in violation of the StarNet User Guidelines. Users are limited to three (3) reports per day and are not allowed to report their own comments.
Any comment that has been reported will be moderated by StarNet. The comment will either be approved or rejected. Approval or rejection is based solely on the StarNet User Guidelines. Comments are only able to be reported once and are not viewable while awaiting moderation.
If you are a registered site user and are logged in, you can vote thumbs up or thumbs down on the comments.
The total votes of approval and disapproval on that comment will be updated when you vote — including your vote and any other votes that have been cast since your browser last loaded this page.
Votes by users who have been banned from commenting don't count in the totals.
User Guidelines
We welcome your comments on articles, editorials, columns, other topics on StarNet or any subjects important to you. Commentary submitted to StarNet (www.azstarnet.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in www.azstarnet.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Star, StarNet, or its parent company. See terms of service for more information.
Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on azstarnet.com.
Don't violate other publications' copyrights.
Do we edit user comments? No. The writers are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. StarNet reserves the right to remove comments that violate our guidelines policy.
Forest Service mustn't dismiss mine opponents
The secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture shouldn't be siding with anyone during the federal process to review environmental impacts of the proposed Rosemont Copper Mine, but it appears he is doing so.The "no action" option supported by Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords is not permitted under U.S. law. The U.S. Forest Service is well aware of this fact as was clearly stated in this article by the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack.
The mining industry knows its rights under U.S. law and will no longer allow itself to be taken advantage of by some who wish to unjustly deprive it of those rights. The proposed Rosemont copper mine is not just a local issue. It is a national issue, which involves land use, development of our natural resources, our national economy and how this nation is going to confront the environmental challenges of the 21st century. If anti-mining advocates are able to halt this project, the future of every new natural resource project in this nation will be in jeopardy. Efforts to halt the Rosemont copper project are the line in the sand, which must not be crossed. And the U.S. mining industry is prepared to everything within its power to make sure the Rosemont copper project becomes a reality. Our nation’s future depends on it.
Our prosperity and that of future generations demands that we do more to provide for our own needs and reduce our reliance on foreign goods. Large industrial projects like Rosemont Copper create new wealth, which is required for economic growth. They are capable of pumping tremendous amounts of capital into the communities where they operate.
According to a recent independent study published by the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources and Arizona State University, the Rosemont copper project will result in an annual economic benefit to Pima and Santa Cruz counties of $745 million. This amounts to nearly $15 billion over the twenty year life of the operation. It will also result in the creation of 2,000 new jobs for our community. This study also shows that there will also be an increase in the economic activity in the area even after production at the mine has ceased. Even five years after the end of production at the mine, economic activity in Pima and Santa Cruz counties will be greater by $75 million and resident’s income will be higher by $37 million than if the Rosemont Copper project had never existed.
Link to Article Supporting this statement:
http://www.admmr.state.az.us/Publications/sr24MinProdRosemont.pdf
Although it appears that we have won this round, there will be many more before this issue will be satisfactorily resolved in our favor. Rosemont Copper's supporters have done a very good job and should be congratulated for all of their hard work, but we must remain ever vigilant and immediately respond to any action our opposition might attempt to halt this project. Keep up the good work. We can win this one. I will look forward to seeing you at the public meetings on the proposed Rosemont copper project on Saturday.
Report this comment
Many mining critics claim the General Mining Law of 1872 is antiquated and has never been updated. However, U.S. Constitution is much older, being initially adopted in 1787. Why is there no one demanding that it also be scrapped and replaced? Oh, wait a minute. It has been updated over the years through the passage of 27 Amendments.
Like the U.S. Constitution, the General Mining Law of 1872 has also been updated numerous times since its inception. This law was revised in 1920, 1955, 1976 and again in 1993-1994. These changes have been significant in that regulatory authority on federal land management has been increased as has revenues paid to the government to operate on federal lands. Furthermore, the U.S. metals mining industry operates under the highest level of environmental regulation in the world, which include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, as well as numerous other federal, state and local regulations. It is our domestic mining industry's compliance with these laws, which makes its domestic operations some of the most environmentally and socially responsible mining projects in the world.
Report this comment
Considering the state of our economy, you would think that U.S. Representatives Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva would be looking for constructive ways to put our citizens back to work instead of trying to halt a project that will create 2,000 new jobs and bring nearly $15 billion in economic benefits to our community over the next twenty years. In opposing the Rosemont copper project and other proposed mining operations in the area, U.S. Representatives Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva have effectively stated that jobs offered by these projects as well as many additional jobs that would indirectly result from this activity, are neither wanted nor needed by the Tucson community.
U.S. Representatives Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva, it is time that you do something positive to help put the citizens of our community back to work or your constituents just might hand you your pink slips in November 2010.
Report this comment
Let's see: Don't mine. Don't drill for oil. Don't harvest trees. Don't build homes. Tax and regulate to death all industry. Shrink or eliminate private autos. Carbon tax our electricity. When our population lives as people in the third world lives, and they live the way we do now, the Libs and their media supporters will finally be happy. Maybe.
Report this comment
The 1872 law, enacted before many western states were even states, is beyond due to be fully updated to meet contemporary legal and social realities. The Forest Service is correct when they maintain they have few options. This is a congressional issue that Grijalva and Giffords need to continue to address. Funny that conservatives are so free to still want to give away public resources at below-market rates to the extraction industries, and let the public continue to subsidize both the infrastructure, and then often the added costs of cleanup later. The benefits of boom and bust industries such as mining are not worth the public costs, and the damage to vital watersheds and water resources.
Report this comment
#4 No one is saying to not mine or harvest our resources. Many environmental groups have come around to seeing the benefits of responsible tree harvesting, ranching, etc. What is objected to is the irresponsible, wasteful way in which supposedly sustainable resources such as fisheries and forests have been trashed with no regard to the long-term health of the resource. That our public resources have been often sold at below-market rates to private companies, with the added insult of widespread damage and clean-up that the public also has to pay for needs to change. Mining, drilling, etc. need to reflect the realities of an increasingly crowded world. The true costs, environmental, economic, and social, of extraction industries need to be finally put forward before the public. Short-term, boom and bust economic benefits are not the way to make our economy healthy.
Report this comment
4. Comment by Jeffrey H. (flibber)
Let's see: Don't mine
Many Rosemont mine opponents are not just saying don't mine but have valid concerns about this mine using up the water supply, tainting the Tucson area water supply, damaging nearby flora and fauna, chicanery by the mine company, concerns about the copper being sold overseas and more.
Those who seem to think all Rosemont mine opponents are people against mining, or are just liberals, are either flat wrong or just pretending.
Report this comment
Chris tells us how good the mine will be for us and then interjects a "we've got you, sucker, using your own laws against you" statement.
The mine is good only for a few individuals who own it and will work there over a historically very short time. Most of them aren't even from this area and will leave when the mine bankrupts.
Report this comment
Has anyone stopped to consider that the FS's incompetence in this matter is merely a smokescreen to offer people who care about the environment (to include the human environment)a stronger chance when the lawsuits begin?
Report this comment
Chris H,
I mean this in all sincerity. You have to get a life. This whole process will probably take a minimum of ten years to play out. It cannot be good for you to be here nearly 24/7.
Report this comment
10 TVC
Time and a half......
Report this comment
15?
Report this comment
Duh!
I got it now! uDuh Too early for me. GOing to work on my wall when I wake up.
To Elizabeth (10)
I think about that alot. I'm not being paid to participate in these forums and I currently have work from paying clients that has been temporarily placed on the back burner.
However, the issues involved here are so vitally important for the future of the mining industry and our nation, that I think that any time I spend here is well worth any personal sacrifice I make.
Report this comment
I agree with Elizabeth #10
Your link to proof of law says nothing about law only a pro mining Department in Arizona
Appendices G Tell it all CHINA WILL BUY OUR RESOURCES
We will end up with a few short term jobs, a big hole in the ground and our copper reserves G0NE
Send Rosemount owners back to their own country to Loot and Rape their own resources.
This will not help Tucson, or Pima county
Report this comment
14. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) — October 23,2009 @ 6:56AM -
Something I have heard quite a bit recently is "in case of an emergency, put your oxygen mask on first and then help others"
Anyhow, have a good one!
I am once again posting from out of the country (Mexico this time) - as the regulatory and political pressures on US mines have basically driven the exploration business offshore.
Rosemont opponents must not be dismissed, to be sure. But of course they aren't being dismissed. Far from it: reps Grijalva and Giffords have pulled political strings to force the NFS to reconsider it's technical decision in favor of the rosemont Plan of Operations.
I would say rather:
The technical decisions of the NFS, which are disinterested and err in favor of the environment, should not be dismissed. The NFS has not found environmental reasons to stop the mine.
And - the opinion of people like me, who work in the industry, should not be dismissed. To often, they are - I am considered to be defending my own greedy self-interest, even though I have zero connection with Rosemont.
However, my 25 years in the industry make me more knowledgeable about how mines are developed and how the business works than many local residents who oppose the mine. Dismissing my opinions, or the well informed posts of Chris Horquilla, as so many Rosemont opponents do, is sort of like excluding doctors and nurses from the health care debate.
Report this comment
"To do less than a thorough, complete review of all options would be a disservice to the public."
What do the editors mean by "all options"?
Looking at all options could take forever and is really nothing more than a tactic to forever delay the permitting of the mine.
The editors should lay out what specific options they think should be looked at.
Report this comment
I am not sure what the Arizona Daily is thinking with their opinion, but it sure looks like there is far more pressure from the opposition than from the mining industry.
Report this comment
re: 9. Comment by Elizabeth W. (TVC)
From all indications the Forest Service is not doing anything legally wrong; therefore trying to place hope in a lawsuit against them is just wishful thinking.
Report this comment
#7 is right on.
Most of us are NOT against mining, but against this particular mine. We want the mountains in our immediate back yards, including the Santa Ritas, Rincons, Catalinas, left alone, given their importance to us for recreation, environmental health and aesthetics. There's nothing wrong with that.
Mining advocates are motivated by profits for a corporation (jobs tend to be raised by them as a red herring, but the quality and number of jobs is simply not that impressive).
And while there's nothing wrong with making money in a capitalistic society, in a democracy, the public good as endorsed by the majority of those affected ought to trump the profits of a few.
Especially, when those few are not American.
Rosemont is shaking us down on account of a law that was put into place when the population in the Western U.S. was negligible and its interests not a factor in mining decisions. The playing field has obviously changed and we all need to ensure that our government makes decisions accordingly.
Report this comment
re: 14. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)
issues involved here are so vitally important for the future of the mining industry and our nation
Are there U.S. mining companies destroying the land in Canada ? If so, is Rosemont happening because some U.S. mining companies are trying to have the U.S. government appease the Canadians by letting a Canadian company do the same here ?
Report this comment
Wit -
Don't count on U.S. mining companies to supply your resource needs. There aren't enough of them left: only 1 viable copper mining company (Freeport) and 1 large viable gold company (Newmont).
U.S. mining companies have had many Canadian mines in the past. They have been held to Canadian mining standards just like any domestic Canadian company, and have not met with public opposition because they are American. The Canadian public understands better than the U.S. public the benefits of foreign investment in domestic mining.
Report this comment
To Wit W (22)
The U.S. imports approximately 2.5 million barrels of oil per day from Canada, of which about 1.25 billion barrels per day are dervived from large open pits (tar sands) in northern Alberta. I would say that America's glutenous appetite for oil is destroying large chucks of Canadian wilderness everyday.
Report this comment
#23
So how many copper mines does Freeport own and operate and how many are located in southern Arizona...and how many of them including New Mexico , are partially or entirely shut down at present, awaiting a higher copper price?
There is no shortage of copper and demand only remains high in China at present.
We do not need --or want another polluting, water sucking copper mine in southern Arizona!
Report this comment
Nearly 75% of the nation's domestic copper production is derived from southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico and there are some who want to halt all mine production and new mine development in this region. It simply does not make any sense.
Report this comment
[This comment has been removed]
Several months ago, I submitted this editorial to the Arizona Daily Star, who subsequently decided not to publish it. In light of the current debate, I feel that it is now time to make this editorial public.
Although this editorial deals with the subject of oil, many of the same issues also apply to the mining industry with respect to it being denied access to our public lands and the impact these restrictions have had on our nation's ability to produce more of the products we require to be self-sufficient. I know some of you will not like the message contained within this editorial, but it is time that all Americans wake up and take a good look in a mirror to see what we have become and the impact our self-serving decisions have had on some members of our community.
Here is the editorial:
Do You Really Support Our Troops?
By David F. Briggs
Over the last several decades, American society has become increasingly dependent on foreign sources for energy, raw materials and manufactured goods. Our chief desire is that nothing disrupts our access to these products or deny us an unlimited line of credit we require to maintain our high standard of living. Satisfying this desire has become one of the chief goals of our leaders in Washington, who accomplish this task through the passage of legislation at home and the pursuit of imperialistic policies abroad.
Although America’s foreign policy objectives have been commonly accomplished through diplomatic means, military force has been increasingly used to achieve our goals. Our foreign policies with regard to the Middle East provide an excellent example of what I am talking about. Ever since the declaration of the Carter Doctrine in January 1980 and the Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine in October 1981, our political leaders have vowed to use any means necessary, including military force, to defend our national security interests in the Persian Gulf. In making these proclamations, our leaders clearly stated in no uncertain terms that these national interests were the presence of more than two thirds of the world’s exportable oil reserves in this region and that it was our nation’s reliance on foreign sources for petroleum, which made these policies necessary. Since that time, our nation’s involvement in the affairs of these countries has only increased, ultimately leading to our use of military power in this region on numerous occasions since 1990. Our involvement in the Persian Gulf has not only been done at a tremendous expense to the American taxpayer, but more importantly has resulted in the shattered lives and needless deaths of thousands of our brave troops, who will remain deployed throughout this region for many years in the future as a result of these policies.
Our political leaders have recognized America’s increasing reliance on foreign oil since the early 1970's, but have repeatedly failed to take any meaningful steps to resolve this important issue. Even more disturbing, our leaders, beholden to special interest groups for political campaign contributions, have erected barriers that significantly impair our ability to supply our energy needs from domestic sources. Continued adherence of these misguided policies will only further weaken our nation’s economic and national security.
If Americans support our troops as they say they do, it is going to have to be more than just a few words or putting a bumper sticker on your car. If Americans really want to show support for our troops, we must make the personal sacrifices required to live within our means and demand that our leaders institute policies designed to make our nation more self-sufficient. Maybe then no American soldier will ever again be sent to fight and die in a foreign land in order to perpetuate unsustainable flaws in the American way of life.
[This comment has been removed]
"This is lock-step bureaucratic obscuration"
The only thing the above statement describes is what our state and local representatives are doing in this process. The DOA is doing their best to follow the LAW. They are not attempting to interpret the law, they are simply following it. Since when is following the laws of this counrty obscuration? Our reporesentatives had a chance when Augusta first bought Rosemont to introduce legislation to change the existing law. They chose to drag their feet and do other things. Don't blame the DOA for doing their jobs, blame your legislators for not doing theirs.
If it wasn't for enviro-extremist views and lobbing, it is highly likely that the laws would have been altered years ago. But because many federal representatives believe they need to incorporate the views of these extremist fringe groups into legislation, attempts to change it have been stalled every time.
Laws are not to be "intrepreted" by DOA and shouldn't be (but are) by activits judges. Laws are made in our legislature, if you want to place blame, aim it toward the correct entity.
Report this comment
#27 Paul,
IMO, the majority of local residents in Arizona are for this mine. It is only a vocal minority like yourself that are against it. The selfish interests of the minority are standing in the way of southern Arizona realizing a very positive impact to the economy. The Rosemont area is no differnt than the area the areas one range to the south and east. It is not the "Yellowstone-esk" area you make it out to be. Just because you have an emotional attachment to the area doesn't mean that the public should be denied the benefit of mining the area.
Why cant you understand that world class near surface ore deposits in the US are quite literally endangered species. When one is found, it should be exploited at all cost because it is highly unlikely that one will ever be found again. Economic mineral/metal deposits aren't like air, they don't exist everwhere. Though people like you think that we should go mine somewhere where else, the reality is that ore deposits can be moved to "better" locations. So sacrifices must be made when it comes to sustaining the lifestyle you have grown accustomed to. The not so scenic Rosemont area, nearly out of view of the public is a great place for a mine and the fact that there is a world class ore body located there makes it even better. Emotional attachments aside, Paul, it is time to face reality or give up your comfortable lifestyle.
Report this comment
CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)keep up the post.
The opposition is trying to silence you with their digs.
Keep educating us.
Report this comment
This comment reporting garbage is getting a little ridiculous this morning.....lets stop this "personal censorship" already.
Report this comment
The "facts" that the opponents of Rosemont keep repeating are often false and at best foolish!
First- The "antiquated" mining law they keep complaining about! It was/is designed to get people willing to risk "their money" exploring for and exploiting the mineral deposits found on or adjacent to public lands. We don't see many of the opponents spending their money to change the law or "buy-up" land to keep it lying fallow!
Second- 18-20 years of economic "boom" is a lot better than a million years of NOTHING! 18-20 years is whole generation folks! A miner who has a child the first year he/she works at Rosemont could still be employed there when the child graduates high school! There are lots of jobs in Tucson/Pima County that don't offer that much security; frankly, most don't!
Third- If this community allows the Rosemont management to "destroy and pollute" the environment around the mine site, then shame on us all! The laws and regulatory mechanisms to force them to be good stewards while using public lands are in place! It is up to us all to make them obey them and honor their contracts with the community!!!!
Fourth- The copper coming out of this mine will be sold for the greatest available profit! These mine developers are in business to make as much money as possible and if selling to China or India is more profitable than American markets, then so be it! I personally don't see that happening when we are importing more than 20% of US needs for copper! #25 needs to do some homework about copper supply and demand!
Fifth- Some of you opponents (#'s 8,9, 10,12,13,15,16) use disparaging personal attacks with the ADS's approval and refuse to look at or listen to anyone else's opinions or the true facts of the entire story. MOST opponents are using their "feelings" to guide their discussion of this complex issue. They refuse to see both sides of the problem!
Six- Our "Honorable Congresspersons", Raul and Gabby, have done nothing to enhance our communities economic development and are publicly opposing the largest assortment of new jobs to be brought to Pima County in years! Try to understand that it will not only be Rosemont employees who will get new jobs, but that many local companies will benefit from doing increased business with the new mine!
Report this comment
29. Comment by Renee R. (renrb7)
"Chris, your comments are repetitive and boring. Does it ever occur to you to give others an opportunity to comment first, or is that part of your job description?"
I find his post to be the more interesting and informed ones.
As to letting others comment first; everyone can comment to their heart's desire. He is not trying to silence anyone as you are attempting to silence him.
He is a free as anyone else to post comments.
I await your admonishment of all the posters who repeat the same comments opposing the mine.
Report this comment
If you go to the US Forest Service web site and navigate to their mission statement it seems a "no action" is well within their scope, irregardless of mining laws. It appears mining laws and forest service mission statements are in conflict.
Report this comment
Copperhead. First, you shouldn't presume to know anything about my lifestyle or background. Second, I'm glad you used the word "sacrifice" and acknowledge that the mine would sacrifice, permanently, a part of the Santa Ritas and our public lands. I guess you do get it at some level. But what do you think gives you the right to tell me or anyone in this community that we "must" make sacrifices for a foreign company to tear up our mountains and dump on our forests? And don't tell me it is because one interpretation of the letter of the law allows it. You know as well as I that what is "legal" and what is "right" are two distinct concepts.
Report this comment
re: 36. Comment by KELLY P. (KELLYAZ0203)
A few points.
"...it seems..."
Can you be less sure of what you read in their mission statement.
"irregardless" is not a proper word. It's just regardless.
If you have solid evidence of a conflict between mining laws and the forest service mission statements will you please post such evidence?
However, the Forest Service mission statement may not be the source of its legal authority to act in this circumstance.
I would suggest getting better informed about the statutory and regulatory parameters that they operate under.
Report this comment
You can't have good, sound environmental policy if mining (for minerals, gas or oil) trumps all other uses of public land.
this is why National Monuments,and wilderness preserves were established. In addition to stopping mineral exploration in such sensitive areas it has stopped land developers and to a great extent land speculators. I'm not against the economic development of this community. The go ahead for this project would stop all other uses (mostly recreational) for the public lands.
Report this comment
Report this comment
Somebody censored Mr. Briggs over here as well, for shame!
Report this comment
USFW Best Use practices in forest watersheds
[This discusses logging, put it also applies to mining, and what is the 'best use' for important watershed areas, and steep slopes. Rosemont Mine, is NOT the "best use" of an important watershed area in the desert, a recreational and tourist area, and enriching viewshed of much of the community.]
Report this comment
Go ahead with mining the copper, but keep the mine tailing's off of our public lands.
Sorry if that is too expensive, if the cost goes up and the Chinese won't buy it, too bad, but if they really want it they will pay.
Report this comment
Readers, stick to the topic and avoid personal attacks.
Those who violate our guidelines may lose their privilege to post.
Those who report comments in such a way as to silence dissenting opinions will lose their privileges.
And just who are you scolding, Mr. John B.StarNet online editor. You and your organization must be aware that this it THE hot-button topic in the immediate area. There have been other topics that you have not provided the opportunity to post comments about. Maybe the Rosemont topic should be one of those!
Report this comment
U.S. Forest Service Reg CFR 228 subpart a reads,: Regulation of mining activities is triggered by the degree of surface disturbance associated with the proposed mineral activities. Any activity that "will likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources" means that based on experience, direct evidence, or sound projection, reasonably expects that the proposed operations would result in impacts which more probably than not need to be AVOIDED, or ameliorated....
I capitalized the word "avoided" to emphasize the "no action" option.
Report this comment
Thank you, John B. Even though the ADS is against the mine, you are allowing BOTH sides to discuss this issue!
Report this comment
To John B (44)
Thank you for restoring my comment (25).
I know this is a hard issue for some of you to deal with, but the future of America is at stake here and if we don't do something to change the way we live our dependence on foreign products will destroy this nation.
Report this comment
World wide demand for copper is down significantly right now due to the recession (I'm sure it will bounce back).My point is that China is buying copper and other metals right now as an investment and alternative to buying U.S. debt, which is becoming worthless.
The value of the dollar has the Chinese reeling.
Report this comment
Hey, all you Rosemont lovers, that claim Bush didn't destroy environmental protections -- then read below and weep -- these are our some of our environmental protection laws that should apply to any mine today, including Rosemont. THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAYS MINING TRUMPS 'ALL,' AND THAT IT CAN'T BE DENIED.
U.S. Forest Service
bq. The agency itself was created from two federal entities. Beginning in 1891, forested public domain lands were set aside by presidential proclamation in order to reduce destructive logging and preserve watersheds.
The National Forest Management Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to evaluate forest lands, develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System.
The Forest Service employs 30,000 people and manages the national forests for a number of uses, including recreation, timber, wilderness, minerals, water, grazing, fish and wildlife.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forest Reserve Act of 1891 timeline
Multiple Use - Sustained Yield Act of 1960
National Forest Management Act of 1976
National Environmental Policy Act
[THIS IS THE MAJOR LAW THAT SAYS MINING DOES NOT TRUMP ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS]
The national environmental policy
Action-forcing provisions that ensure that agencies consider the national environmental policy in their decision making process.
bq. The law establishes the national environmental policy, including a multidisciplinary approach to considering environmental effects in federal government agency decision making. The law also established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
Report this comment
A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists. The term plant is also used.
Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions1 because of the frequently fraudulent and damaging character of their actions. However, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates "buzz", the shill's actions may be legal. For example, a person planted in an audience to laugh and applaud when desired (see claque), or to participate in on-stage activities as a "random member of the audience", is a type of legal shill.
"Shill" can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit "shill" for the industry at large, possibly because their income is tied to its prosperity.
Report this comment
46. Comment by KELLY P. (KELLYAZ0203), and, 51. Comment by tom c. (NoShillZone) --
My two favorite posts of the day! Thank you.
Report this comment
;)
Report this comment
Sukie and Kelly, the best most pertanent use of public land where an economic deposit of minerals exists should in nearly all cases be mining. Certainly there are exceptions for places that derserve it like Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Glacier National....etc. The Rosemont area is not a place that I would put into that catagory.
However, public lands with economic mineral deposits don't always end up mines. Case in point Grand Escalante Staircase, Ironwood National, Denali National, and the new 1 million acre buffer north of GCNP....I'm sure that there are plenty more examples than these four off the top of my head.
Report this comment
Just to be clear Thomas C. (Copperhead):
I have worked in open pit copper mines here in Southern Arizona. I have been through all the MSHA training. Hence, I think I am entitled to my opinion since I am speaking from long personal experience.
The issues of safety and working conditions are real and significant. Countless times have I had to be sure that I was safe in open pit mines and that my little, tiny 1-ton truck was out of the way of the 600-ton haul truck (vehicle & ore combined) with 12-foot diameter tires that was coming down the mine road at 50 MPH engulfed in a dust cloud with a driver trying to navigate with blind spots that extended 200 feet from his little cab two stories in the air - not a complaint, just a statement of fact to illustrate reality.
The MSHA “fatalgrams” are real. Everybody in mining knows this. Mining is dangerous work. People die. People get hurt. The conditions are harsh. This goes for open pit, aggregate, strip and underground mining. This is a real issue for anyone considering entering the field. Your attempt to minimize these realities is disingenuous and does no one any good.
As to misleading opinions on my part or what my true intentions are, we simply don’t know each other well enough for you be able to make any kind of a factual statement in this regard.
Personally, I support mining, proper stewardship of our nation’s resources, economic development and prosperity. After reading all of the arguments, the proposals, the financial models and the applications submitted, I have concluded that I am simply against this particular mine.
The other problem is that you and other proponents of Rosemont are trying to convince everyone that the mine will be a big part of the solution to our region’s economic problems. It will not and cannot. We need a broader, more diverse technology, trade and manufacturing base in Southern Arizona that adds value at all stages. This is the only way to prosperity.
The Rosemount Mine is a bad idea. It won’t create the economic prosperity that you and others claim.
On the other hand, you are fond of making personal (ad hominem) attacks rather than backing up your arguments with facts that can be objectively evaluated. Calling other people’s opinions “garbage” is immature and inappropriate.
Your Rare Earth argument is faulty. We do not decide where minerals are distributed in the Earth’s crust. If there were RE elements readily available in the United States, I guarantee we would be harvesting them and someone would be making a fortune.
Copper, moly, silver and other commodities are determined by world spot and futures markets. I personally have seen moly basically sitting on the ground in mines near Tucson because the price didn’t justify picking it up and moving it. May not be the case now, but has been in the recent past.
Other local mines are underperforming financially. Some of it is due to the grade of their ore. Some are nearing depletion. Some have suffered from mismanagement (my opinion). What is inescapable is that mining is cyclical. There are no guarantees. At the start of a new mine, all the proponents make any promises to anybody they have to in order to get approval.
20 or 30 years later those promises are hard to keep. Remediation costs money, rules & laws change. Politicians and regulators come and go. Environmental damage is usually worse than expected. Business model didn’t work. Companies go bankrupt. Etc. It is cheaper to hire lawyers and lobbyists rather than stepping up to the plate and fixing what you agreed to in the first place. You don’t even have to leave Pima County to see clear examples of this.
Mining is not bad, it just follows a very predictable path.
Our efforts simply have to go into something more sustainable that creates broader economic benefits for all Arizonans.
Incidentally, I agree with your comments on the Gem Show and spring training. Can’t build an economy around those either.
Now if we had a professional sports team, more high tech manufacturing, world class logistics, better schools, etc. then we would have something to talk about….
Report this comment
To Joseph B (55)
You state in comment #55, that "We need a broader, more diverse technology, trade and manufacturing base in Southern Arizona that adds value at all stages. This is the only way to prosperity"
While we do need to broaden our industrial base here in Arizona, eliminating mining or refusing to allow the development of newer mines to replace those nearing the end of their productive lifes, only narrows our industrial base. It does not widen it.
Report this comment
re: 50. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
How do these forestry regulations relate to the issue of MINING?
The argument is not about the impact of forest harvesting impacting the watershed and therefore nothing cited effects the mineral claim and process for the permitting of a mine.
Moreover, can anyone truly say that a forestry resource exist on the land in question?
Report this comment
Vilsack is correct. A no action option is illegal and to try to change that would be retroactive on not just this mine and industry but many others including ranching and logging.
Contrary to the constant yammer that the Rosemont area is environmentally sensitive, it is in fact an area that has be mined and ranched for over 150 years. The trees were cut out for fence lines, smelter fuel and fireplaces. Before the closure of accss to the main rosemont property, on any sunny weekend the area humed and roared with off road vehicles as dust hovered over the valley.
It is of great importance to note the Pima County Board of Supervisors (BOS) at the direction of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP) committee leader Dr. Maeveen Behan, Deputy Director of Natural Resources of the Pima County Parks and Recreation Department as well as Professor at the University of Arizona and Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, refused to purchase the land. This decision was made after a full SDCP study and review of the Rosemont area including the aquifer importance and watershed value. This aquisition was refused with the full knowledge that the deposit would likely be mined in the future if the BOS didn’t purchase the parcel.
The Rosemont mine orebody should be placed in production with the support of Vilsack. When economic deposits are found in areas with low environmenal value, the environmental community must support their development or be labeled obsructionist.
If we do this then when we oppose mines in pristine areas of high environmental value we can point to these mines and say, we support and promote development there, but leave the last unspoiled places alone.
Report this comment
Lunchtime!
IS there anyone who truly enjoys low sodium, low salt soup?!? bleh
Anyhow,
55. Comment by Joseph B. (jberring) —
Now if we had a professional sports team, more high tech manufacturing, world class logistics, better schools, etc. then we would have something to talk about
You betcha! Kinda hard to attract those things when there is a HUGEEEEE lack of recreational/entertainment opportunities for familes of said professionals.
Report this comment
45. Comment by Bob L. (Tubabob)
hey, what do you know? I agree with you on something.
Report this comment
What the heck? If you can't beat 'em, join em.
______________________________
August B. (EcoRealist)
If you really know from the bond stuff then you also know Rosemont Ranch was not on "the list" for purchase with 2004 funds. The Committee makes the decision as to what makes the "list" based on a large variety of factors.
Taxpayers and voters would have thrown a fit if it had been purchased with bond money back then as it was not on the voter package.
I can't speak for the reason it didn't make the list (although I have some insight) but from my experience projects are also guaged on risk basis. There was not water for a mine then and there isn't water for a mine now so it would have been a lower risk.
Interestingly enough one of the members of Rosemont Ranch LLC/Triangle Ventures who sold the Rosemont Ranch to Augusta Resources was sitting on the bond committee when the property was sold. The same person still sits on the Committee.
The Ranch did not make the 2004 bond list but it did make the 2010 list. (previously the 2008 bond)
Report this comment
#1. Chris J., you again forgot to mention the study published by the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources and Arizona State University was paid for by Rosemont. In the past others have reminded you of this important detail, so I will now remind you again. The study was bought and paid for by Rosemont and it is said loyalty lays with those who sign the check.
Later, I'm going out doors to enjoy this beautiful afternoon.
Report this comment
My goodness, apparently there has been a bit of an issue over the letter sent by Secretary Vilsack's staff to the GVCC.
And I quote
"The Forest Service is reviewing the issues surrounding the Rosemont Project as part of its obligation under the National Environmental Policy Act. As part of that review, the Forest Service is examining both the proposed mine and the no-action alternative"
He also apologizes and takes full responsibility for the letter that was mistakenly sent to the GVCC.
Report this comment
62.
I would caution the remarks concerning the states educational resources.
I personally have been involved in many UA projects, here in Tucson, and no matter the project they demand their money up front with no strings attached to the outcome.
Anyone doing any higher education studies can tell you that, you may not like the outcome but to them it is not a personality contest. You get the answer and nothing else.
Report this comment
#62 Joe, come on......we are talking about a world renouned business school (WP Carey School of Business). They aren't about to risk their reputation to please a local entity paying a paltry $40K for an ecomic study. There is no real basis for your comments.
Report this comment
51. Comment by tom c. (NoShillZone)
How apropos!
Report this comment
Joeseph,
I know enough to know that your are making misleading statements about open pit mining. Just look at your next round. I know of no +300 ton haul truck (only ones that will match your 600 ton loaded claim) that can travel 50mph except for one that is out of control going down hill. There is also no way on this earth that a company would allow a loaded haul truck to go that fast even if it could. If you truly remember your MSHA and company haul truck training, you would have known that you are exaggerating.
Sure the safety issues are significant, but that doesn't justify your outlandish statements about mine fatalties. You go through a lot of training to keep people safe, why did you not mention that?
Promises are hard to keep in all industries, just wait for the next boom bust defense cycle for Raytheon, or the next boom bust cycle for tourism, or construction, or potentially DMAFB. All industries have their ups and downs, but mining has provided a stable economic base for the state since its inception and that seems like a pretty good record to me.
One last thing. My RE arguement is not faulty. The Mountain Pass RE deposit has been closed down since 2001 and although reschuled to open in 2011 it is not a sure thing. So I guess you should do a little homework before commenting on things you may not know as much as you think you do.
Report this comment
Maybe the member of the local NGOs will take the message in #51 to heart.....one can always hope.
Report this comment
Well, thank you, Elizabeth! By the way, low sodium soup isn't too bad, if one has access to either 1)hot sauce 2)a salt shaker, or 3) All of the above.
Report this comment
69. Comment by Bob L. (Tubabob) — October 23,2009 @ 3:04PM
For some reason my husband always buys the stuff by mistake! ugh
I didn't think of hot sauce, but I did add salt!
Okey dokey. Back to enjoying a beautiful day!
Report this comment
low salt soup counter-acts the salty snacks
Report this comment
In regards to the the study published by the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources, not having any statements as to the negative impacts of mining was irresponsible, even if they found them to be minimal, the negative impacts should have been included in the study. It so biased that it makes one wonder.
Report this comment
Letter from Secretary Vilsack regarding the proposed Rosemont mine
I am forwarding a copy of the letter that Congresswoman Giffords received today from USDA Secretary Thomas Vilsack.
In the letter, Secretary Vilsack indicates that he was unsatisfied with the letter that staff prepared for the Green Valley Community Coordinating Council and he requested it be held until a thorough review of the issue had been completed. He regrets that the letter was mistakenly sent before that review was done.
The Secretary’s letter goes on to say that the Forest Service will examine the no action alternative in its review of the Augusta mine plan of operation and that no decision will be made until they have completed a thorough review of the mine plan of operation and any required mitigation.
Also significant is the secretary’s statement that Deputy Under Secretary Jay Jensen will “review the actions that the Forest Service has taken to date with respect to the proposed mine.”
Congresswoman Giffords is pleased to have received the Secretary’s clarification about the application of the no action alternative and that he will be reviewing the actions the Forest Service has taken to date.
Please share this letter with others who are interested in this matter.
<<Vilsack letter to GG.pdf>>
Ron Barber
District Director
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords
Report this comment
The real opinion of the DOA was the first one, this is just a little CYA by them now that some higher level congresswoman (i.e. Ms. Pelosi) is likely asserting her power of office on the Secretary of Ag (Mr. Vilsack's boss). At this point, it has been reduced to nothing more that political posturing. The law is still the law no matter how much power is asserted.
Report this comment
Thomas C. (Copperhead),
First, I posted my responses exactly where I wanted to. These are pertinent threads and the posting was appropriate independently of what you may think.
Second, I stand corrected. The haul truck speed was 40 MPH not 50 MPH (a case of fingers moving a little too fast on the keyboard).
Third, I am not making misleading statements. I am simply stating facts and following on with my assessment and opinion.
Lastly, I have no dog in this fight. I will not personally profit nor will my family no matter whether the mine succeeds or fails. I do have experience. I have researched the issues and have arrived at my conclusions based on the facts.
There is broad consensus that the mine does not make any sense. If the proponents did not require the use of public lands and did not pose a threat to groundwater, I probably would not even bother writing.
If they want to lose their money on their land then fine, it is none of my business. The problem is that significant costs are being shifted to society at large and for generations to come with no corresponding benefit. This is what makes the mine a bad idea.
The facts, stubborn little things that they are, remain facts.
Ultimately, my overarching point is that our time, effort and resources can and should be invested elsewhere that will have a greater impact and benefit to our economy and community.
On the other hand you seem myopically entangled in the issue and many have expressed dismay that you do not approach the situation objectively and feel the need to savage anyone with an opinion different than your own. A little maturity here would be appreciated.
As to RE, personally I would much rather see you put your efforts into making that a reality instead of backing such a poorly conceived venture like the Rosemont mine.
I did not say that China was the only place where RE elements exist. I am simply following on your comment about how most current RE production comes from China. I do agree that this is a problem that should be corrected if possible.
As a suggestion, you might consider that people that differ from you might have correct information and valid ideas. A little respect is in order. Such rabidity on your part tends to make folks take you less seriously….
Report this comment
Now that everyone has calmed down and my comment (#28) has been restored for everyone to read, lets take a close look at what I actually said.
First of all, I was not trying to place blame nor was I questioning anyone’s patriotism. I was talking about how legislation passed by governmental bodies to solve one problem, can and do result in serious unintended consequences. I was also talking about the influence special interest groups and their money have on legislation. That is why our elected officials first and foremost must represent the people’s interest, carefully to evaluate every piece of legislation being considered before actually passing it and be willing to made adjustments to legislation where it are needed.
Secondly, having an editorial of this type being written by an individual, who works in the natural resource industry may illicit a response that the only thing he is interested in is increasing domestic production of natural resources. However, increasing domestic production of natural resources is not the only thing our nation can do to become more self-sufficient. There are actually a number of other important ways to achieve this goal. In asking Americans to make sacrifices, I was referring to making an honest effort to reduce our personal consumption. Another way to achieve self-sufficiency is through conservation. This editorial shows no preference for one over the others.
If our nation is going to become more self-sufficient, no single method to achieve this goal is going to be successful. It is going to take some combination of methods. Unless we find some way to become more self-sufficient, we will never deduce our nation’s dependency on foreign imports and it will destroy our nation the same way similar excesses have doomed other civilizations over the span of history.
Report this comment
To Joseph B (75)
I know of no mine at permits haul trucks to operate at 40 mph. It's simply to dangerous, and clearly a MSHA violation.
Report this comment
Sigh...here you go.
Mine firm pays $6M to investigate tainted groundwater
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/WATCHBLOG/65866
Report this comment
The old 120 tonners that Duval Sierrita had during the early 70's would go into an emergency braking mode at just over 30 mph.If the operator was young and dumb(insert my picture here) he could just let them roll down the ramps, usually done during the evening hours, when it was harder to get caught. They would do the braking for you. Kids, don't try this at home.
Report this comment
If taking trailings (white mineral laden paste) and waste rock. Then spread it out over 3,155 acres of the Coronado National Forest land. By their est. of 1,188,211,000 tons. Comes out to be around 376 million tons or so a acre. 173 cubic foot sq foot at 172 feet high. Has no effect on the forrest, water, wildlife I don't know what does. If destroying archaeological sites All cataloged and managed by the Arizona State Museum. Along with the Religious areas for American Indians and grave sites. With no regard to the Native American Graves and Protection Act has no effect I don't know what is is. To just destroy an area that should be set aside and was set aside for for all generations to enjoy forever just for the profit of a Company from Canada. If approved over the protests of the people living here may have a lasting effect on mining in this State forever.
Report this comment
#10-Elizabeth...........
AMEN!
Report this comment
#21 - Bree........
Boy, I haven't heard this better stated.
Nobody is against capitolism, making a profit, etc. This is America, after all. But when this anitquated law could possibly result in ................
An open pit copper mine bigger than Bisbee's in the CATALINA mountains or the RINCON mountains, in plain sight AND which would deprive Tucsonans from fishing, camping, hiking, etc., and depleting Tucson's well water,it would not be tolerated.
When I was 5 years old, we camped and fished on Mt. Lemmon. Many still do. It's one of the most beautiful mountain ranges and we're lucky to have it in Tucson. Can you imagine seeing an open pit copper mine (the size of Bisbees) in plain view of all of Eastern Tucson? It would NOT be tolerated and Rosemont would NEVER get by with it.
Help us out here, Tucson. It could happen to you and it IS happening with YOUR water, if the Rosemont mine goes in.
Report this comment
#31 Re: IMO, the majority of local residents in Arizona are for this mine.
Boy, oh boy, oh boy.......I want some of what you're smokin' or drinking.
Hahahahahahah!
Report this comment
#34 - Don..........
Re: The "facts" that the opponents of Rosemont keep repeating are often false and at best foolish!
After reading this ridiculous statement, I didn't bother reading the rest of your post. EXTREMELY elementary. Those, who oppose the mine, could make such "foolish" statement (as you just have), but we don't stosop to that level.
Report this comment
To Hilda G (82)
No one is proposing to develop a mine in the Rincon or Catalina Mountains.
Report this comment
#38 - do you want us to pick apart YOUR grammar, spelling or punctuation? It could be easily done. Cut with your insulting remarks and stick to the subject.
Report this comment
With unemployment rates of 8.2% in Pima county and 17.2% in Santa Cruz county, you would think that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and Congressman Raul Grijalva would be looking for ways to put our community's citizens back to work. Yet they have opposed the Rosemont copper project and other proposed mining operations in the area effectively stating that jobs offered by these projects as well as many additional jobs that would indirectly result from this activity, are neither wanted nor needed by the Tucson community.
Tucson’s future prosperity is dependent on large projects of this type, which are capable of pumping massive amounts of capital into the communities, where they operate. And when done in compliance with strict federal, state and local laws and regulations, it will not cost the taxpayer a single dime.
Large mining projects of this type are capable of pumping massive amounts of capital into the communities, where they operate. According to a recent independent study published by the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources and Arizona State University, the Rosemont project will result in an annual economic benefit to Pima and Santa Cruz counties of $745 million over the twenty year life of the mine and will also create of 2,000 new jobs for our community.
Link to Article Supporting this statement:
http://www.admmr.state.az.us/Publications/sr24MinProdRosemont.pdf
Report this comment
Four decades ago Pima County and Tucson's population was 300 thousand today the population is close to one million. One million water users. Water is a far more precious commodity in this desert city and will continue to be so in the future. As Tucson continues to grow there will be a greater impact on our water table. We don't need Rosemont pumping our ground water when toilet to tap is being forecast as an alternate water supply. Nor should CAP allotments have been handed over to Rosemont.
When I jog I carry water with me not copper. Tucson is the only city in the United States with a sole source aquifer. Deny the permit!
Report this comment
Nor do we need Rosemont contaminating our ground water. Deny the permit!
Report this comment
what part of the profits will stay in Arizona? Or will the financial gain be only in jobs?
Report this comment
57. Comment by Joseph C. (Arafel) — October 23,2009 @ 1:33PM
Ratings: -12 +8
re: 50. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
How do these forestry regulations relate to the issue of MINING?
The argument is not about the impact of forest harvesting impacting the watershed and therefore nothing cited effects the mineral claim and process for the permitting of a mine.
Moreover, can anyone truly say that a forestry resource exist on the land in question?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
AUGUSTA WANTS TO USE OUR USFS LAND AS A DUMPING SITE, FOR THEIR FOREIGN BENEFIT -- AND USFS DIRECTIVE IS TO ALSO SAVE/KEEP PRISTINE THE WATERSHED AREAS -- THESE ARE THE AREAS ROSEMONT NOW PLANS TO FILL UP WITH HUGE MOUNDS OF MINE TAILINGS. TRY RE-READING WHAT I LINKED -- MAYBE A LIGHT OF COMPREHENSION WILL GO OFF THIS TIME.
Report this comment