After drawing sharp criticism from Rosemont Mine opponents, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack on Friday said his office made a mistake in sending out a letter saying that it can't legally approve a "no action" alternative for the mine in the Santa Rita Mountains.
1. Comment by Johanna E. (StarNet producer)— October 23,2009 @ 11:13PM
Ratings:-26+31
Readers: This is a reminder to follow our guidelines in posting comments. In the recent past, comment threads about mining have been a hotbed of ad hominem attacks and other inappropriate posts.
Those who click on the "Report this comment" link frivolously, or in an attempt to silence opposing viewpoints, will lose their privileges.
2. Comment by Ed R. (scorpion447)— October 24,2009 @ 12:49AM
Ratings:-37+32
For all the complaining the environmentalists do over this issue,it's not gonna really matter once we default on our interest payments on our Chinese debt, Sadly after that happens,it won't take much for China to take us into slavery that the clowns in DC sold us into and then turn around and drain the natural resources we could have used to reduce our country's dependence on ANYTHING foreign,really stimulated our economy,and possibly eliminated some of our increasingly suffocating national debt.
4. Comment by NightHawk P. (NightHawk)— October 24,2009 @ 1:51AM
Ratings:-31+46
If taking trailings (white mineral laden paste) and waste rock. Then spreading it out over 4,000 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 and all the people here. 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 does. 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, and the U.S. Forrest Service.
5. Comment by Richard S. (Ricardo Small)— October 24,2009 @ 4:54AM
Ratings:-32+53
There is no justification to destroy public land by allowing Rosemont to proceed.
There is no justification, because if Rosemont is allowed to proceed by the U.S. Gov't over major opposition from just about everybody, the mine will take value from nearby private real estate, it will destroy wildlife populations, it will suck the water table down, it will increase traffic on roads to and from the area, it will diminish tourism to Patagonia, Sonoita and Elgin and, as Nighthawk points out, will desecrate holy places.
Rosemont Mine is a terrible idea that must NOT be permitted.
6. Comment by Jim J. (Jim Jones)— October 24,2009 @ 5:30AM
Ratings:-42+14
This is called a flip flop and is troubling because it seems no one in the Obama administration is able to make hard decisions.
They say one thing then as soon as the liberals get their panties in a bunch Obama and his team flip flop to the other side.
It is as if they don't have a mind of their own and are running the government based on what the far left MoveOn types want to the point that the Obama so called leaders hide under their bed at night.
Now they are flip flopping like a fish out of water about what the law says.
What is the problem with Obama? It's a simple law written in simple words but they can't seem to understand it.
7. Comment by Ralph S. (Gringo)— October 24,2009 @ 5:32AM
Ratings:-43+26
Arizona started as a mining state. In the late 1800’s the mines started producing copper and other metals, allowing the state to prosper.
Jobs do not appear to be important to Nighthawk or Richard.
Sacred lands? Current Indians were pushed by others from the better plains areas by other Indians on a few hundred years ago. How can the land be sacred to them?
It would be nice to have more money in the local economy. Under current rules the land MUST be reclaimed at the end of the life of the mine and money set aside for that.
Yes, mining is not always as nice as persons for California would like, but jobs for the state are somewhat important too.
Shame Gabby does not want more jobs for southern Arizona.
8. Comment by Norma F. (#1986)— October 24,2009 @ 5:33AM
Ratings:-26+46
If Rosemont Mine, a desecration of the Santa Ritas, water, land and air pollution, wildlife destruction, and dumping on our public land is allowed to go forward, our great-grandchildren will, in disgust, be asking, “Who allowed this, and to what purpose?”
9. Comment by Jefferson C. (commandermarcos)— October 24,2009 @ 5:48AM
Ratings:-37+23
Much of the opposition to Rosemont seems to be driven by fears about the effect the mine may have on local tourism. I just can't see this. Tucson's tourism industry coexists with the existing mines at Sierrita and Mission, which are closer to Tucson and have much greater visual impact that Rosemont will.
I wonder which community earns more from toursim - Green valley which sits on the edge of the copper mine, or Elgin.
(Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the only reason Elgin exists is that it was one of the state's early mining districts.)
11. Comment by Michael K. (4877)— October 24,2009 @ 6:05AM
Ratings:-44+14
You're worried about what your great grand children will be thinking Norma?
At the rate we are going your grand children will be told what to think and when to do it, your great grand children will probably be aborted.
This Obamachange is a mess to think about. The way they are approaching all issues that come before them looks like Amateur Hour in magnification.
Just look at what this mine and it's production will do for "cap and trade".
13. Comment by David H. (DABears)— October 24,2009 @ 6:13AM
Ratings:-39+22
So let's ship all of our jobs to China, and let's not produce anything here in the good old USA. The environmental wacos can then keep everything looking the same, and we can worship the rocks and trees.
14. Comment by Bob L. (Tubabob)— October 24,2009 @ 6:23AM
Ratings:-16+34
I was not aware that Elgin AZ had any mining near it. It was on the Fairbank-Nogales railroad line, and served as a section headquarters, along with a cattle shipping point, but, mining center, I don't think so.
Deserts are defined by their lack of water. Learn to ration sweat, not water. By staying in the shade, limiting activity to cooler times such as night and using your available water, your chances for survival increase greatly. Sipping water does not get it to the brain and vital organs. Take a good drink when you need it. People have been found dead from dehydration with water in their canteens. Also, do not rely on "parlor tricks" such as solar stills as a primary source. These will often produce more sweat digging the hole than is obtained from water gained. Learn to locate water through areas of green vegetation, flights of birds, converging animal trails and digging in the outside bends of dry creek beds. Javelinas and burros are excellent at finding water and digging it up in creek beds. Best of all, plan ahead, and allow one gallon per person a day. This does not include your needs for cooking, pets or auto maintenance.
17. Comment by Sylvester W. (NoSympathyFor TheDevil)— October 24,2009 @ 6:27AM
Ratings:-19+40
I don't think the opposition is related to effect on tourism. It's related to memories of Pike Hill, Ely, Salt Chuck, Kennecott, and other sources of industrial mining indiscretion, and despite what Rosemont says there will be spills, there will be leaching, and they will be burying discarded tires with all that waste rock (according to their own MPO). Not to mention the unconscionable amount of water they will be using.
We live in the desert and are told to conserve, conserve, conserve! Yet the mining companies have ALWAYS had unrestricted access to ground water.
If the mine proceeds, they purchased 14000 acres of land , roughly 22 square miles. Why cant they pile their stuff in their own property and not on public land?
I don't trust them to do the reclamation they promised either. Many open pit mines have only a few people to do the reclamation work and those mines are still a scar 20 or more years after the fact. Judging by PAST performance of many other mines why would this one be ANY different. It will become a SUPERFUND cleanup site and the US taxpayers will be picking up the tab.
They'll open a scar more than a mile wide (apparently one of the 3rd or 4th LARGEST mines in the world). They said this will inject 745 million into our local economy, but I haven't seen the basis for that figure to be a reality. The money they make off Arizona Copper will not benefit Pima County, it will benefit a select few at the expense of beautiful land and watershed ruined forever. The money wil be gone in a hundred years but the scar of the mine and tailings wont...
20. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)— October 24,2009 @ 6:56AM
Ratings:-16+34
#6 - Again, I am a conservative opposing this mine.
Tourists do NOT love to visit mines. People go to Bisbee for the arts and antique shops and the mine happens to be there. The proposed Rosemont mine will be much larger than Bisbee's. That should give everyone an idea of what this eyesore will look like from miles and miles. It will also give people and idea of the mess they leave behind.
Tourism, Elgin wineries, birding, hiking, hunting, ATV'ing, boating @ Patagonia & Parker lakes, bicycling, motorcycling and simply enjoying a drive down Scenic Hwy. 83 will all be gone. And, along with it, will be the businesses, their jobs and the community. The mine employees will not keep the businesses alive.
The mine would operate 24/7, every day of the year. As everyone knows, Rosemont cannot be trusted. They scheme to give the phony front that people actually want this mine.
They cannot be trusted for containing dust, noise, lighting, etc.
This particular mine should not happen. People can't sell their properties, as it is just because of it's possiblity. Want proof? Just talk to any real estate agent in the area. Nobody, in this area, wants to live near a mine. The community was here first, unlike most mining towns which were built because OF the mine. Then, once the mine closed, so did many of the towns - or they have trouble existing like many of them do now.
Then, again, there's the water. We have no guarantee that CAP water will be around during the life of this mine. Besides, we don't want CAP water.
This mine is projected to be only 18 years. That's it. Unless, of course, you take in to consideration the other 3 mines that they are trying to keep under the radar that are very close to the proposed Rosemont site. Can't wait to see those big TEP transmission lines too. Won't that look lovely.
21. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— October 24,2009 @ 7:02AM
Ratings:-31+14
The "no action" option supported by Congressman Raul Grijalva and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords would essentially grant the U.S. Forest Service a discretionary right to halt the Rosemont copper project, even if Rosemont Copper could have otherwise been able to comply with all federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations and had been able to successfully complete the permitting process. This would be a political decision based entirely on emotion and not on the technical merits of the proposed plan of operation. Although the “no action” option clearly violates U.S. law, undue political pressure has now forced Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack to reverse previously stated Forest Service policy.
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. Without some assurance that a property could be mined if economic mineralization was discovered at a site, no mining company would invest the capital required to explore or develop the property. The risks are simply too great. 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.
23. Comment by Richard S. (Harry Red Dog)— October 24,2009 @ 7:03AM
Ratings:-15+30
"I wonder which community earns more from toursim - Green valley which sits on the edge of the copper mine, or Elgin." Commander Marcos, 9
Let's survey our posters' views of the effects of mining on the outskirts of Green Valley. Is this what we want more of, in one of the most beautiful areas in Southern Arizona?
Are 400 medium wage jobs worth leaving a legacy rivaling that of the mining around Green Valley?
Does the prospect of operations ending before "reclamation" begins (as the price of copper plummets) bother the small minority who support this plunder bother anyone?
Does anyone believe the words of a Canadian company that has never operated a mine and has no track record to evaluate has have any validity?
Sorry for the rhetorical questions but really, put this up for a vote.
24. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)— October 24,2009 @ 7:06AM
Ratings:-15+30
#17 - already they can't be trusted. They've already bladed, down to bare dirt, about 8+ acreas, in two areas. It can be clearly seen, on Hwy. 83. Permit or not, this is premature since they have no ok on using Federal forest lands which they must have for their mine.
This was an "in your face" action and they did this on purpose. These people are truly dispicable.
26. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— October 24,2009 @ 7:12AM
Ratings:-27+13
If you really sit down and look at the science, one reason many of your copper deposits here is the southwest are economic is because of the arid-semi-arid climate is conducive to concentrating the low grade primary copper mineralization in many of these deposits into large high grade secondary copper deposits.
27. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)— October 24,2009 @ 7:13AM
Ratings:-15+31
I care about the jobs in the Sonoita and surrounding communities (which will be lost due to the proposed mine), not those of the Rosemont employees.
I just love that word "reclaimed". Sounds like putting the property back to it's original condition or close to it. Have you ever seen an open pit copper mine that's been reclaimed? I haven't. Probably because it's impossible to do.
Now someone will say "Rosemont" is on the cutting edge of technology. Baloney.
30. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— October 24,2009 @ 7:19AM
Ratings:-33+15
With an unemployment rate of 17.2% in Santa Cruz county, you would think more people in Patagonia and Sonoita would welcome the jobs the mine would bring to the area.
33. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— October 24,2009 @ 7:24AM
Ratings:-32+14
Denial of domestic natural resource projects for no other reason than having to deal with the perceived negative impacts a project might have on one’s community only serves to perpetuate many foreigner’s image of the “Ugly American”, who is selfish, overindulgent and inconsiderate of the implications their self-serving decisions have on the rest of the world. And forcing mining projects overseas, where environmental laws are less stringent or non-existent, just so we can enjoy the benefits that mining provides without dealing with any of its consequences is about as ugly as it gets.
I would like to think that Americans would at some point change their attitude with regard to this issue. However, considering the opposition to the Rosemont copper project as well as many other domestic natural resource ventures, this is not going to happen any time soon. All I can only hope for is that those who oppose domestic natural resource projects will some day take a honest look at their motives and come to realize that the rest of the world was not created to solely fulfill their needs.
37. Comment by Karen A. (KA Gatita 2)— October 24,2009 @ 7:38AM
Ratings:-16+31
#7 Ralph S. wrote: Arizona started as a mining state. In the late 1800’s the mines started producing copper and other metals, allowing the state to prosper. Jobs do not appear to be important to Nighthawk or Richard.
In the late 1800s it was not possible to create the amount of damage Rosemont will do by taking out so many tons of ore from our forest. The mining law is antiquated.
400 jobs can NEVER justify the environmental destruction Rosemont mine will cause!
39. Comment by Phillip D. (pdavid)— October 24,2009 @ 7:44AM
Ratings:-13+26
Chris J: re #21
"undue political pressure"
Your "undue" political pressure is real Arizonans screaming about the quality of their life, and their real estate values, being seriously degraded.
When I was searching for land to buy to build my house on, I didn't buy land in that area specifically because of the proposed mine. I bought land somewhere else. I feel sorry for all those folks who can't sell their property now.
"This would be a political decision based entirely on emotion and not on the technical merits of the proposed plan of operation."
Well yea, I'd get emotional when the explosions, my dry well, and the loss of life savings (house) were driving me stark-raving-lunatic crazy!
Emotional is not a bad word. The best parts of life are the ones where we have a positive emotional experience. The worst parts of life are when we have a negative emotional experience.
You have the deck stacked against you because there are a lot of negative emotions attached to your mine, and very few positive ones. And the positive ones are small and the negative ones are HUGE.
40. Comment by Michael K. (4877)— October 24,2009 @ 7:46AM
Ratings:-26+10
400 medium wage jobs, #23 Harry Red Dog's quote.
I guess that is in comparison to 400 people unemployed and 1200 on welfare. Someone will mine the copper some where but by God not in my back yard.
42. Comment by Sylvester W. (NoSympathyFor TheDevil)— October 24,2009 @ 7:49AM
Ratings:-13+24
I would think the definition of "Ugly American" would constitute those of a mindset to be so greedy and self-indulgent as to endanger a fragile desert ecosystem for short-term monetary gain.
Mankind wasn't placed on the planet to consume it... mankind was placed on the planet to be the caretakers and stewards. Last time I checked, there wasn't another planet Earth anywhere close-by to run off too once we've finished screwing up this one.
43. Comment by Phillip D. (pdavid)— October 24,2009 @ 7:50AM
Ratings:-18+12
Irony of the week:
"All I can only hope for is that those who oppose domestic natural resource projects will some day take a honest look at their motives and come to realize that the rest of the world was not created to solely fulfill their needs." (emphasis mine)
47. Comment by Richard S. (Harry Red Dog)— October 24,2009 @ 8:09AM
Ratings:-10+27
Chris 41
Explain why an open pit mine in the scenic Santa Ritas is the cat's meow but a similar venture in Gates Pass, the Catalinas and the Rincons would be off limits.
50. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)— October 24,2009 @ 8:19AM
Ratings:-10+21
#21-Chris, you may be right but the U.S. Forest Service SHOULD have a say in how their/our land is used and they SHOULD be able to say "no". The mines COULD use all of their own property & not forest property.
53. Comment by Bree H. (Bree H)— October 24,2009 @ 8:37AM
Ratings:-10+24
#1, come on. This is ridiculous. The attacks in Rosemont forums have been no worse than many other forums that haven't had these admonitions.
Ever since the Star co-sponsored a job fair for Rosemont, I've had doubts about its objectiveness on this issue. Heavy-handed comments from a Starnet producer don't give us more confidence.
Public opinion is strongly against this mine. Let's hope that a democracy works as it is supposed to do. No matter how many pockets Rosemont has feathered.
55. Comment by John S. (aghsts)— October 24,2009 @ 8:47AM
Ratings:-20+11
You know, from all the comments about water and how Rosemont will deplete the aquifer, blah, blah, blah... everyone fails to mention the current users of water, especially FICO. Do you realize that FICO uses more water in 4 years than Rosemont will use in 20? Not to long ago, FICO actually used more water than they are today (approx 30,000 acre feet per year).
Now let's take into consideration how long FICO has been "depleting" the aquifer from 30,000 to 50,000 acre feet per year? Not a comment, narry a whisper is spoken.
56. Comment by Maria S. (abril)— October 24,2009 @ 8:55AM
Ratings:-9+21
#47 asks:
"Chris 41 - Explain why an open pit mine in the scenic Santa Ritas is the cat's meow but a similar venture in Gates Pass, the Catalinas and the Rincons would be off limits. Am I missing something?"
You are missing the fact that this poster, who has been flooding the comment sections with propaganda, probably represents the financial interests of this particular mining venture, and will say anything to support it- including pretending to oppose other possible projects for environmental reasons.
57. Comment by Sylvester W. (NoSympathyFor TheDevil)— October 24,2009 @ 8:59AM
Ratings:-7+19
56 - Nah, it kind of shows that a lot of folks don't know about FICO or Farmer's Investment Company (pecan orchards)... but the fact that you brought it up means that the water table will drop faster, and just because FICO does it doesn't make it okay for Rosemont to do it too.
And, by the way, how many stinking GOLF courses do we need in the desert anyway. That's just an inane use of water in the desert, reclaimed or not! I love golf, btw!
58. Comment by Mikki N. (niemicat)— October 24,2009 @ 9:00AM
Ratings:-13+13
_ 13. Comment by David H. (DABears) — October 24,2009 @ 6:13AM
Ratings: -17 +13
So let's ship all of our jobs to China, and let's not produce anything here in the good old USA. The environmental wacos can then keep everything looking the same, and we can worship the rocks and trees. _
60. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 24,2009 @ 9:15AM
Ratings:-9+23
What a difference a day makes.
We would be stupid to allow a foreign-owned mine to deplete and sell our copper for their financial benefit, with crumbs for America, since Augusta already has a sales contract with China.
China is hoarding copper -- why is that?
If they control most of the world's supply, we'll all be in big trouble.
Rosemont's reserve should be saved for our future, our protection. It would be stupid to frighten ourselves into thinking we must give China whatever it wants -- they let us fall, they fall.
It's not good for America when it's a foreign-owned mine making the profits, they take out-of-country, and sell copper they got cheap from America, to a foreign country that will increase the trade deficit by using our bargain copper in their import products to America.
A few, not well paying, not union jobs, isn't worth this community's future and surrounding mountain splendor. We might not have the most beautiful mountains on Earth, but they are our mountains, that make this area a wealth of beauty, recreation, wildlife and plant habitats, vital watershed source, and just darn nice to wake up to each morning, without huge mining scars ruining the entire experience and existence of irreplaceable wild areas.
61. Comment by leslie d. (LD)— October 24,2009 @ 9:16AM
Ratings:-6+18
2. Ed R. (scorpion447)-
For all the complaining the environmentalists do over this issue,it's not gonna really matter once we default on our interest payments on our Chinese debt
How will allowing a Canadian company to mine US resources affect our interest payments to China?
64. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 24,2009 @ 9:31AM
Ratings:-9+22
Hey, pro-Rosemonters -- just wondering what is it going to take before you admit this HIGHER ALTITUDE, MOUNTAIN MINE, AND IT'S ELECTRIC LINES, NEW HAULING ROADS, AND BILLIONS OF TONS OF LIFELESS, UGLY MINING WASTE DUMPED IN LIFELESS PILES WE CAN SEE FROM THE VALLEY will be seen across the valley, ruining thousands of people's views, property values, and the enjoyment of a scenic drive anywhere these mining scars, HIGH IN THE SKY, can be seen.
Other mines being mentioned are either tucked away or lie low, where an entire region isn't being impacted by ugly mine tailings EVERY SECOND OF EVERYDAY, and always subjected to the horror of the destruction of our wildlands.
THIS MINE WILL BE TOURIST KILLING -- ALSO BECAUSE PEOPLE COME HERE TO HIKE AND WANT TO EXPERIENCE SEEING WILDLIFE IN WILDLANDS.
I've never heard anyone say 'Oh, what beautiful mine tailings.' Most people are sickened, and saddened. THIS IS NOT HOW WE WANT TO FEEL, FOREVER, EVERY TIME WE LOOK AT THE SANTA RITA MOUNTAINS, IF THIS FOREIGN BENEFITING MINE IS ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD.
65. Comment by carol m. (carol123)— October 24,2009 @ 9:34AM
Ratings:-6+20
comment no. 2 My forefathers fought for our freedon as well as my childrens children will for our freedom.Gods resources are only what man thinks he needs which would be clean water! Not some huge hole in the ground to only leave footprints of bad decisions .And some day regret that huge hole and have polluted the water and an eyesoar on the beutiful gift of all that god gave us.So Save the Scenic Santa Ritas from destruction.For the shear purpose of GREED! for the profit of foreign lands.
67. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 24,2009 @ 9:45AM
Ratings:-8+20
Water issues are the most important issue with mine, and every type of pollution mining brings also, but I don't think people are giving credence to the fact we are greatly effected by our surroundings daily, especially our subconscious.
Destroy the beauty of our beautiful, uplifting mountains ('premium' in property valuations), we all will be negatively effected, even if you're not consciously aware of it.
Just like certain colors effect human mood, so does having, or not having, unspoiled beauty to enjoy in the area you live in. Augusta will produce ugly, permanent, ever-visually present destruction to the Santa Rita Mountains, and thus our daily views.
Augusta wants to take everything, leave devastation, and laugh all the way to their foreign bank.
68. Comment by carol m. (carol123)— October 24,2009 @ 9:45AM
Ratings:-7+19
comment 58, You are the type of person that would bend over and take it. Instead of fighting for what is yours. This is our land not foreign land remember we are tax payers . We have no choice so we have a right to protest and a right to fight for our country.
69. Comment by Veekdor L. (Sand Man)— October 24,2009 @ 9:50AM
Ratings:-9+13
We don't need no stinkin' beautiful desert. Corporate profits are all that matter. While we're at it lets forget about clean air and clean water.
We want the rich to get richer at the expense of the environment. If the environment can't protect itself it doesn't deserve to cost us a single penny.
Money is always the most important consideration. Even poor people should rise up to protect those big companies from our tree hugging government.
I can't wait until Republicans get back in power and we can get back to raping the planet for profit.
70. Comment by leslie d. (LD)— October 24,2009 @ 9:50AM
Ratings:-8+18
30. CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)-
With an unemployment rate of 17.2% in Santa Cruz county, you would think more people in Patagonia and Sonoita would welcome the jobs the mine would bring to the area.
Chris - You seem to be full of pro-mine facts.
Can you site how many points will come off of that 17.2% number with this mine?
71. Comment by Lynn N. (lynnN)— October 24,2009 @ 9:56AM
Ratings:-19+9
If we prevent this company from developing this mine (and they are an exceptionally conscientious mining company), then we also need to seriously consider a moratorium on construction of new homes,strip malls, golf courses, resorts, and parking lots. Over-building of this fragile environment is draining our water table (and using copper) and ruining a once lovely town. Calculate the acres covered by parking lots and big box stores. Gads! We have problems bigger than this mine, and this one issue is becoming a bit of a smoke screen to take attention away from other issues. What about all the new homes which have been built at the Sonoita turn off? Why isn't anyone screaming bloody murder about the land being bladed and habit being destroyed for new construction?
72. Comment by leslie d. (LD)— October 24,2009 @ 9:57AM
Ratings:-8+19
33. CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)-
Denial of domestic natural resource projects for no other reason than having to deal with the perceived negative impacts a project might have on one’s community
How about the actual negative impacts?
I have many objections to this mine, but my main concern is water.
We live in a desert and already have to import much of the water we use. We can't afford the water that Rosemont will take.
74. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 24,2009 @ 10:17AM
Ratings:-10+19
There is nothing that says the "best use" of our national forest lands is mining dump site.
What Agusta needs is a place to dump it's waste from their private property mine -- tough luck -- that's not the "best use" of the Santa Ritas' USFS land. Their arrogance regarding their demand is astounding.
We need our water, our beauty, and peace and quite to enjoy this special area -- not constant explosions, massive machinery sounds, plus dangerous traffic due to a mine that is for foreign profit mostly. It will be an 'industrial' nightmare, where there once was natural, restful beauty, and wildlife and flora.
We would be the 'third world' players, if this madness is allowed to go through.
The size of the mine itself will be devasting, why should we give away priceless USFS land for a foreign company to sell to China? China -- yeh, let's help them hog most of the world's copper -- like China hasn't wanted to control the world if it could. Yeh, let's do what China wants, they have our best interest at heart always (sarcasm).
75. Comment by Richard S. (Harry Red Dog)— October 24,2009 @ 10:22AM
Ratings:-8+19
Well it would seem the chief proponent of the Rosemont mining operation can't or will not explain why he wouldn't support mining in Gates Pass (Tucson Mountains), the Rincons or the Catalinas.
I mean really Chris, all things being equal, why are the latter sites sacrosanct while the Santa Ritas are open for business? What criteria are you employing to reach this decision?
76. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 24,2009 @ 10:28AM
Ratings:-10+14
73. Comment by leslie d. (LD) — October 24,2009 @ 10:03AM
Ratings: -0 +2
41. CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)-
No I would not. Nor would I support developing a large open pit mine in the Rincons or the Catalinas.
I find that very interesting. What's different about the Rincons or Catalinas?
Report this comment
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Twenty bucks, CHRIS J. owners property with scenic views of these two mountain ranges, but no view of the Santa Ritas. As an insider, he'll know when to put his property up for sale, if any mine looks like it would be granted that would effect his property. I'm waiting to read Chris's response.
78. Comment by Maria S. (abril)— October 24,2009 @ 10:46AM
Ratings:-9+18
After hundreds of posts promoting the Rosemont mining project, and pretending there are no environmental problems, CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) has finally talked himself into a corner. He (or she) has slipped up!
The reason he wouldn't support mines in the Rincons or Catalinas has nothing to do with his concern for the environment. It's simply because they would be competition for the mine project he represents. But he can't admit that. His response, if it ever comes, will be interesting.
79. Comment by Brenda J. (psiartist)— October 24,2009 @ 10:57AM
Ratings:-9+22
I read years ago that it was unsafe to drink water from ANY stream in the Colorado Rocky Mountains because all streams were polluted by mining operations and drinking could lead to health problems and even death.
I do not know for a fact but SUSPECT that these pollutants from Rosemont would eventually work their way into the Tucson underground water supply. IF they do the wise thing would be to move everyone away from Tucson.
I worked my way through school working summers at iron mines in MINN so I ... like mines. But to mine so near a major city whose entire life depends on this one underground water supply seems dangerous to me. Jobs and profits mean little in the desert if you can't drink any water.
80. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 24,2009 @ 11:02AM
Ratings:-9+17
Tourists are interested in OLD mining history -- it's a curiosity.
Residents and tourists aren't in support of new mining, that will ruin the area where the old mining thankfully stopped.
What was, does not justify what the new, massive destruction would be from today's mining, especially a higher altitude huge pit mine with enormous lifeless tailings everywhere.
And never forget how much water all mining uses, even these so-called newer, improved methods.
The improvements don't amount to a hill of beans.
I remember when they promised the Green Valley mines near I-19 weren't going to be an eyesore, because they were going to vegetate those hugh tailigs -- just like they are promising at Rosemont.
They ran some sorry experiments at the Green Valley tailings too -- just like they are doing those experimental tests at Rosemont.
ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS -- AND BARE, DEADLY TAILINGS FOR THE ARIZONA WINDS TO KICK UP AND CAUSE 'POLLUTION ALERTS.'
The feds put up a new monitoring station in Green Valley about a year and a half ago -- finally -- so hopefully more of the truth of how deadly and volumous mine air pollutants can be monitored.
The State Legislature, though is illegally planning to halt air monitoring as a budget cutback. Ain't they grand (not).
81. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 24,2009 @ 11:20AM
Ratings:-11+16
41. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) — October 24,2009 @ 7:46AM
Ratings: -12 +4
To Richard S. (38)
No I would not. Nor would I support developing a large open pit mine in the Rincons or the Catalinas.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
75. Comment by Richard S. (Harry Red Dog) — October 24,2009 @ 10:22AM
Ratings: -1 +2
Well it would seem the chief proponent of the Rosemont mining operation can't or will not explain why he wouldn't support mining in Gates Pass (Tucson Mountains), the Rincons or the Catalinas.
I mean really Chris, all things being equal, why are the latter sites sacrosanct while the Santa Ritas are open for business? What criteria are you employing to reach this decision?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Where, oh, where is our ever-present, always quick with a comeback, Chris? We are very interested in your answer to Richard's question. Am I close -- see question #76.
83. Comment by Bill B. (4485)— October 24,2009 @ 11:44AM
Ratings:-18+7
green valley was started and grew to what is there now in the shadow of the mines. The loss, "Twin Buttes" which was buried.. I liked the little town, but the mines of served the state and its people. Mine it and they will come.
84. Comment by Renee R. (renrb7)— October 24,2009 @ 11:45AM
Ratings:-7+20
#46 James J.S.: "DOWN with the enviros.
UP with the mine and making use of our God-given US natural resources."
If you think it is God's plan to blast a mile deep hole in the ground, you are sadly mistaken. Why would you support the greed of this Canadian corporation who doesn't give a rat's butt about our beautiful land? Why WOULDN'T you support the land that God has so generously given us and wants us to protect for future generations? What is it about you and those like you who care more about money than about poisoning our water, and air? Do you think jobs will be the number one priority when there is no water to drink? If being an "enviro" means respecting by protecting this beautiful area, then I gladly call myself an enviro.
85. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— October 24,2009 @ 12:11PM
Ratings:-20+7
Contrary to the constant yammer here that the Rosemont area is environmentally sensitive, it is in fact an area that has be mined, logged and ranched for over 150 years. The trees and Juniper were cut out for fence lines, smelter fuel and fireplaces. Before Rosemont closed access to much of the property, on any sunny weekend the area hummed 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 recommendation of Pima County Administrator and creator of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP), Chuck Huckelberry, refused to purchase the land.
The SDCP committee leader Dr. Maeveen Behan, Deputy Director of Natural Resources of the Pima County Parks and Recreation Department and Professor at the University of Arizona helped in the surface resource evaluation and determination that the aquifers of the district would not be effected by ground water pumping nor would the flow of the Pantano watershed and most of the watershed is to the north and downstream from the proposed mine site.
Her outstanding work leading the Pima County Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan has been recognized by the American Planning Association and the Ahwahnee Award.
She at one time was a member of the White Cloud Council, a hard core environmental organization, funded by the Hormel brothers of canned chile fame.
It must also be recognized that not just the SDCP and Pima County have reviewed the area. The original Wilderness Act applied only to national forests, national parks, and national wildlife refuges. The Act immediately designated some areas (mostly in national forests) as wilderness and directed the Secretary of Agriculture (Forest Service) and Secretary of the Interior (National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service) to survey all lands under their jurisdiction for additional tracts that could qualify as wilderness, RARE 1 or RARE2. The Rosemont tract met none of those criteria. In 1976, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directed the Secretary of the Interior to inventory all Bureau of Land Management lands as well as identifying valuable forest lands for conservation efforts. This study was completed in 2001. Again the Rosemont area was not included for conservation effort lands. Obviously, to all rational people the Rosemont area will never meet the criteria for wilderness, roadless or even conservation lands.
Again the voices against water usage using shear hyperbole and mis-leading statements in an effort to mis-inform the uninformed. The Pecan groves south of Tucson use between 28,000 and 36,000 acre feet of water per year, Rosemont will use 5,000 acre feet per year and is mandated by the Plan of Operation to recharge 105%. One proposed development next to green valley will use 5,000 acre ft of water for 15,000 homes on 4,200 acres and another backed up next to the Tumacacori mountains will use 4,000 acre ft per year for 12,000 homes.
So, why this hue and cry about water? It is a Trojan horse. The Rosemont Mine will not impact the current stream flows or aquifers, to claim otherwise is shear hyperbole.
As for the tailings they will not be a paste or slurry but will be stripped of water by vacuum filters and dry stacked. The non-mineralized rock will be handled the same way.
Some rock will be used to back fill and in the end all tailings and side-cast rock will be covered with soil and replanted with native vegetation. Do not try to compare this with the tailings west of Green Valley as they have never been covered with top soil and properly treated prior to re-vegetation. The opposition to this mine will do untold damage to the environmental movement and if the opposition is successful we will be blamed for robbing jobs from the locals and negatively impacting the county and state economies.
Just look at what happened recently on the Hopi Reservation.
The tribes of northern Arizona (Hualapai, Navajo, Havasupai and Hopi) have all banned uranium mining on their lands but two weeks ago the Hopi Tribal Council told a number of environmental groups opposed to coal mining and coal-fired power plants to leave the reservation.
Indian Country Today reports the Hopi Tribal Council said the Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council, National Parks Conservation Association, Grand Canyon Trust, and “on-reservation organizations sponsored by or affiliated with the groups, are no longer welcome on the reservation.”
Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. supported the Hopi Council's decision, saying the environmental groups threatened the survivial of the Navajo people by pushing to close down the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona. USA Today reports that the power plant provides more than 70% of the Hopi Nation's government revenues.
This is the future of the environmental movement if we continue to allow a vocal minority to continue in opposition to rational industrial development with built in environmental protections.
86. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 24,2009 @ 12:37PM
Ratings:-8+17
It doesn't matter if Huckelberry didn't see fit at the time to list, or buy, Rosemont Ranch at the time they made up the hopeful 'to buy' list for the Sonoran Desert Conservation plan -- although it's a headache now. Just because the County didn't buy the land, doesn't mean surrounding USFS to Rosemont should then become a toxic mining waste dump for many square miles high up in the Santa Ritas.
Augusta-Rosemont doesn't just want to trash their property, but many square miles of USFS land.
Land worth saving in it's predominately natural state, and can be redeemed. There are important watersheds, and natural habitats in the area too.
If this USFS land is allowed to be trashed by mine's toxic tailings, it can never be redeemed. It will be almost as bad as a closed nuclear reactor site -- forever deadly and toxic. Actually, it will be worse -- it's toxic destruction will be over a greater area, it will be seen from the valley, and the toxins and tailings will be harder to contain. THE MINE IS JUST PLAIN BAD FOR THIS ENTIRE COMMUNITY'S WELL BEING.
87. Comment by karen b. (kaylee)— October 24,2009 @ 12:37PM
Ratings:-6+19
Do the people of Tucson, Vail, Green Valley,and Sonota, realize that this is a Canadian mining firm that's ready to tear appart our beautiful Santa Rita mountains with their copper mine. Canadian mining laws were revised about 10 or 15 years ago, so this kind of rape to their own land would cease. Now with our own antiquated mining laws in existence there here.
88. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— October 24,2009 @ 1:15PM
Ratings:-19+8
86. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
87. Comment by karen b. (kaylee)
It appears people making uninformed and non-factual statements such as these will do anything and say anything to get their way and stop the Rosemont Mine.
This is simply wrong minded and short sighted. The environmental community is coming under increasing fire for mis-representing issues from global warming to endangered species. We need to be respected and our credibility unassailable in order to reach sustainability goals. This cannot be accomplished in one or two generations and we must not cause large population dislocations or ultimatly hardship and starvation of segments of the population. That would be a form of suicide.
Refusing this mine will cause hardship on local and state economies as well as deny well paying jobs to people in an area that is job poor. We should be supporting this mine and offering help to minimize end use impacts to the environment
89. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— October 24,2009 @ 1:21PM
Ratings:-18+7
87. Comment by karen b. (kaylee)
Canada promotes open pit mining and the government auctions off mineralized tracts for exploration and mining in the middle of areas we would consider wilderness. Canada's environmental laws are "mine friendly" with the government working hand in hand with the corporations to develop new tecnology and methods in order to minimize the mine foot print. Environmental NGOs are regulated so they cannot be irresponsible. Stop making false satements.
90. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— October 24,2009 @ 1:48PM
Ratings:-21+6
86. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
Sorry Suki, it does matter. The environmental consulting business’ in concert with the SDCP used every tool available to determine the environmental value of the land and how mining would effect the watersheds and sub-surface water resources. The determination was made and supported by the environmental organizations in and around Tucson that the area has very low environmental value and should be left to mining. In fact the SDCP land planning map designates that area reserved for mining.
Tailings contain no toxins as they have been stripped of all minerals and side-cast rock is low in all minerals otherwise it would be processed for it’s mineral content. There will be no toxic mining waste dump. Shame on you.
The land is not in a predominantly natural state. Where did you get that idea? The Rosemont area has been heavily mined for over 200 year starting with the natives through the Spanish and then the Mexicans and Americans. It has been ranched since the early 1800s with many tributaries of it’s watershed dammed for the creation of water holes and cattle tanks. In addition the land was stripped of what few trees it had for fueling local mine smelters, blacksmith shops and fire places. I must note here that the entire Rosemont area was grassland up until the early 1940s first due to grass fires and later due to wood cutting. I should also be noted that after the 1887 earthquake, aquifer levels in the Santa Cruz Valley dropped as much as 120 ft and in the San Pedro Valley the artesian wells can still be observe where none were present before. A decline in grasslands was noted shortly after this and as cattle grazing continues the invasive shrubbery and tree gained a foothold.
Once again the tailings will not be toxic. You need to stop the false statements.
There will be no radioactivity nor will the area be deadly. It will not be able to be seen from the Tucson valley nor impact the valley in any manner. The solid tailing will be contained on three sided by natural terrain and on a fourth by a rock fill.
You seem to think you can spread false inflammatory information on here and it will pass as fact. You are damaging the credibility of every responsible environmentalist by acting in this manner. I respectfully request that you stop.
92. Comment by Maria S. (abril)— October 24,2009 @ 2:11PM
Ratings:-6+16
The endless posts by “CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)” suddenly seem to have disappeared- and been instantly replaced by a Rosemont promoter who calls himself "August B. (EcoRealist)". How odd.
93. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— October 24,2009 @ 2:18PM
Ratings:-17+7
Swallowed Up.
”Tucson, A.T., May 6, 1887 -- This place was shaken by an earthquake at 2:12 p.m. Tuesday. No one was injured, but considerable damage was done to buildings. Goods were thrown from the shelves in stores and many houses here were cracked. The shock was accompanied by a rumbling sound. Many clocks were stopped and the entire population fled to the streets terrorstricken. The court house cupola swayed like the mast of a ship in a turbulent sea and the building seemed as though it were toppling over. When the shock struck Santa Catalina mountain great slices of the mountain were torn from its side and thrown to its base. Vast clouds of dust rose above its crest 7,000 feet above the sea level at three to four miles apart. It was believed for some time that a volcano had burst out of the crest of the mountain. One towering peak known as Old Castle, a prominent landmark from Tucson, has entirely disappeared. The extent of the damage can not be told for several days.”
"A major earthquake tremor stopped all the clocks in Tombstone at 3:06 p.m. May 3, 1887. It sounded like the explosion of dynamite echoing through the town, with the earth shaking violently. People ran screaming into the streets, merchandise and glassware crashed to the floor from their shelves, gaping holes appeared in buildings on Allen Street. A reporter from the Tombstone Prospector newspaper pulled out his watch and counted the 35 seconds the earthquake lasted. Eight minutes later, a second shock of about two seconds; a third shock was hardly felt, about 4:15 p.m.”
“Water spurted up out of the ground in great fountains out in the middle of the desert where no water was before. Ten miles from Tombstone, a lake covering an acre of ground completely dried up in 20 minutes, as reported by the Tucson Citizen Weekly Newspaper of May 4, 1887.”
“Charleston was hit hard. The quake there lasted only thirty seconds, but the ground shook so violently that every building in town was damaged. Many of the adobe homes fell into the river and were swept away. A party just in from the vicinity of San Pedro river reports that the ground opened about six inches, and that water rose in places that were before perfectly dry. Some old timers say the San Pedro River's course was changed from South to North that day, that it went largely underground and locals say that the sound of rushing waters may still be heard from the inside of a cave near the site of Charleston.”
The mine is nothing compared to natural events and the damage that occurs during them.
94. Comment by Mikki N. (niemicat)— October 24,2009 @ 2:22PM
Ratings:-7+14
Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)
EcoRealist are not Ecological friendly. They probably agree with the game and fish
Maybe the Jaguar has been seen there
There have been reported sightings in the Santa Ritas. I personally saw on in 1964 between Patagoina and Nogales, near the River. Could the Az game and fish be in with the Mine. They have not wanted to establish an area for the Jaguars. They will not release the information to the star about sightings. They are suspending study.
Maybe they know something that could keep the mine our and are hiding it.
“Jaguar team ceases work amid disputes, big cat's death”:http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/313731.php
“Jaguar-tracking data hard to come by from Game and Fish”:http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/313724.php
96. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— October 24,2009 @ 2:33PM
Ratings:-16+7
92. Comment by Maria S. (abril)
I partied last night and got up late.
I am not a Rosemont Mine promoter but I do support the project. I don’t know “CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)”.
However, I understand that in order to create an environmentally friendly society that is sustainable, we must not be viewed as knee-jerk obstructionists. What I see here is some NIMBYS heavily supported by people who claim to be environmentalists using misinformation and hyperbole in attempts to panic the general public into supporting their anti-Rosemont position. This methodology is simply wrong and will cause tremendous damage to the credibility of environmentalists everywhere. Augusta Resources, due to this misinformation has now sent out an information packet to clarify and correct this misinformation. This will place environmentalists in a defensive posture attempting to explain their stance and cause many to question their credibility.
97. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— October 24,2009 @ 2:46PM
Ratings:-14+7
94. Comment by Mikki N. (niemicat)
The town of Patagonia is at the north slope of the Patagonia Mountains, not the Santa Rita Mountains. The Jaguar sightings are very few and have been along the U.S./Mexico border on the southern slope of the Patagonia Mountains. The other sightings have been in the Pajarita wilderness in the Atascosa Mountains to the west, also right on the border and in the Southern Baboquivari Mountains, also right along the border. The only other fairly recent sightings further north were outside of winkleman, Az back in 1992.
I also reported a sighting in the Coyote Mountains, on the reservation, in 2004.
99. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 24,2009 @ 3:15PM
Ratings:-8+14
88. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist) — October 24,2009 @ 1:15PM
Ratings: -5 +2
86. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
87. Comment by karen b. (kaylee)
It appears people making uninformed and non-factual statements such as these will do anything and say anything to get their way and stop the Rosemont Mine.
Etc., etc., etc.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
August, that is just false alse, empty rhetoric, with not one fact from you, especially anything to disprove what we wrote was inaccurate or untrue. There are many substantiated facts, by many people, why the Rosemont mine permit should not be granted -- even if you try to endlessly pretend these valid arguments haven't ever been made since the mine's plans first appeared in the local news.
Yesterday I posted some links on the below link, that back up what is supposed to be considered in weighing a permit for a mine. Look here
The above post is called character assassination, trying to ruin the other person by slander, not facts, because you have nothing to back up what they say, or prove us wrong.
This happens everyday -- someone, or many, from the pro-Rosemont group start with insults, false accusations, etc., against me, in an attempt to discredit and silence me.
What are you afraid of, that you resort to these tricks to try and shut me up? The truth?
100. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 24,2009 @ 3:17PM
Ratings:-8+13
90. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist) — October 24,2009 @ 1:48PM
Ratings: -5 +1
Vague nothingness claims that aren't true, and a waste of anyone's time to disprove -- nice trick though, write a long spiel of half-facts and attempt to waste the other person's time disproving your totally unsubstantiated half-facts.
Paying private environmental consultants ensures you get the results you want, accurate or not. This needs to be stopped. Also, the government's stance can change with each administration, especially one as bad and corrupt as the Bush Administration, that was rubber-stamping devastation to foreign companies, making me wonder what the payback was for all those favors he ordered.
101. Comment by Don M. (saffronbindy)— October 24,2009 @ 3:25PM
Ratings:-7+17
21. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) — writes:
"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 is simply not true. Nowhere in the study does it say there will be an annual economic impact of $745 million to Pima and Santa Cruz counties. Read the report.
The ASU study is a "flow of funds" report. They do estimate about $15.6 billion will flow through the mine over 20 years, or about $780 million a year. They discount this by interest and other things paid out to come up with the $745 million number.
Of the $15.6 billion the largest part, about $7 billion, represents investor risk. This is money "loaned" by investors (stockholders, banks, etc.) to Augusta. This is repaid to the investors through profits. Since very, very few of them live in Tucson, none of that money is coming here.
Another big portion is dividends expected to be paid to stockholders as the price of the company's shares increases. This is nothing more than a gamble, an estimate. If the price of copper drops below the $1.75/lb baseline the company predicts that money will never appear.
The next biggest part of the $15.6 billion is mine construction costs. Most of this money won't be spent here either. We produce no steel or concrete, for example. The steel will be bought from China, and the concrete from Mexico. The study does recognize some local labor will be required, but the economic impact of that is trivial.
The true local impact of the mine will be about $200 million a year. This includes about $100 million in wages (but only at peak production, which is 13 out of 20 years) and $30 million in taxes. The other $70 million goes to things like utilities, which goes to stockholders of those companies who, again, don't live here.
From a financial standpoint, in my opinion, the mine does not make sense compared to the resource destruction and risks (water) involved. And since you can never reclaim an open pit mine we will have it forever. Not a good idea...
102. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— October 24,2009 @ 3:29PM
Ratings:-18+9
99. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
Wow, glad I checked back as I was going out the door. Is this the type of person you are, waiting until you think the coast is clear to attempt a rebuttal you think will not be answered? I expected nothing less and that is why I checked back. I was right. You cannot win the debate straight up using wild statements but try to come through the back door. Your credibility is in the dump.
See Ya!
103. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 24,2009 @ 3:31PM
Ratings:-10+13
94. Comment by Mikki N. (niemicat),
Nothing would surprise me about what lows and unethical behavior todays AZ G & F would go to. Good thought you shared.
Wonder if Augusta donated a bunch of grant money to AZ G & F? Of some other benefit. They've certainly been spreading their money around to anyone that can help their greedy plan.
After, AZ G & F care only about "game animals" that they can sell these animal's lives for hunting and fishing permits.
Threatened and endangered species, in their minds, a forced waste of time.
AZ G & F needs a house cleaning from the top down, but Brewer, nor the current State Legislature are the ones to do it -- they will make matters even worse.
The only good thing about shutting down the jaguar group -- they shouldn't be able to carelessly murder another jaguar, but they probably will still capture and torture other big cats and bears. Most of them should be permanently fired, including any of the incompetent vets they use. Evil minds thing alike, stick together.
What a sad situation, we need to know if there are jaguars, and where they roam, but we can't share it with AZ G & F, or they're kill it, because they don't care. All their protocol is outdated and unprofessional, and they are happy to keep it that way.
104. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)— October 24,2009 @ 3:53PM
Ratings:-10+8
#62, not too sure about that. Obama & his administration seems to be obsessed with FOX news. One would think that that's an issue that wouldn't be on his radar.
106. Comment by Joe j. (We Be Tucson)— October 24,2009 @ 4:01PM
Ratings:-7+17
4 decades ago Pima County and Tucson's population was 300 thousand, today the population is close to 1 million people. I million people = 1 million water users. Water is a far more precious commodity in this desert city than copper and will continue to be more so in the future, as Tucson population continues to grow.
We don't need Rosemont pumping or contaminating our ground water, when toilet to tap is being forecast as a future alternate water supply for Tucson. Nor should CAP allotments have been handed over to Rosemont. When I jog I carry water with me not copper.
The city of Tucson was here long before Rosemont and we are the only city in the United States with a sole source aquifer. Deny the permit!
107. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)— October 24,2009 @ 4:02PM
Ratings:-7+13
#71 says: (and they are an exceptionally conscientious mining company), ........
So, is that why they scraped 8 + acres, in two different areas, down to bare dirt? Where EVERYONE traveling Hwy. 83 can see it? When they don't have the go ahead for this mine?
Exceptionally conscientius mining company, my a**!
108. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— October 24,2009 @ 4:07PM
Ratings:-15+6
"So, is that why they scraped 8 + acres, in two different areas, down to bare dirt? Where EVERYONE traveling Hwy. 83 can see it? When they don't have the go ahead for this mine?"
For the same reason that someone can scrape their yard down to bare dirt: It is their land to do as they wish with. The sooner that you folks understand private property rights, the better off you will be. This country has spent too long suffering under the "mob rule" mindset used by the environmentalists and leftists.
109. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)— October 24,2009 @ 4:16PM
Ratings:-7+11
#85 - I didn't think we had a guarantee of CAP water for the next 20 years.
If you were at the meeting this morning, you would have heard from some of the business owners that tourism (and, as a result, their businesses) WILL be affected if this mine proceeds and not for the positive. The Sonoran Institutes report found this to be the case too.
111. Comment by Joe j. (We Be Tucson)— October 24,2009 @ 4:19PM
Ratings:-7+12
The draining and contamination of our water supply will kill Tucson's economy. And this mongrel of a mine called Rosemont will go for it with out even blinking their eyes. They seem to think all entitlement belongs to them. Hey Rosemont, we don't owe you nothing, especially when it pertains to our future health and welfare. WATER!
112. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)— October 24,2009 @ 4:24PM
Ratings:-7+13
August - regarding your statement.....
"will do anything and say anything to get their way and stop the Rosemont Mine."
Hmmmm. I find this interesting when Rosemont mine paid & bribed college students in to attending a public forum with Rosemont badges and getting them to sign a petition in favor of the mine. Poor things thought they were applying for jobs. Then, they weren't allowed to remove their signatures.
113. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 24,2009 @ 4:26PM
Ratings:-7+13
102. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist) — October 24,2009 @ 3:29PM
Ratings: -5 +2
99. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
Wow, glad I checked back as I was going out the door. Is this the type of person you are, waiting until you think the coast is clear to attempt a rebuttal you think will not be answered? I expected nothing less and that is why I checked back. I was right. You cannot win the debate straight up using wild statements but try to come through the back door. Your credibility is in the dump.
See Ya!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Character assassination -- and absurd, childish accusation. Like I'm intimidated by any of you pro-rosemonters. I just happened back to the website, saw your #88 & #89 comments, that I responded to, and posted. I hadn't scrolled down yet to see your comment about the game. Please stop the childish games, if you can, because this is a waste of the forum and everyones time.
114. Comment by Don M. (saffronbindy)— October 24,2009 @ 4:39PM
Ratings:-8+16
92. Comment by Maria S. (abril) — writes:
"The endless posts by “CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)” suddenly seem to have disappeared- and been instantly replaced by a Rosemont promoter who calls himself "August B. (EcoRealist)". How odd."
I have written before how, as an editor, I have software which can tell me if two (or more) pieces of text were written by the same person. Your text is an individual as a fingerprint. My software is quite complex, but looks at word patterns and other things.
My software tells me it thinks the posts here today by Chris J. and August B. were written by the same person. Their posts share some very unusual traits. One of them is shared by only 2% of English writers. Another is shared by only 0.1%. It would be highly unlikely that two people sharing both of those very rare traits would show up here on the same day.
116. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)— October 24,2009 @ 4:48PM
Ratings:-7+14
#106-Joe........
and, as you recall - in the 60's certain Tucsonans had to water on even days and others on odd days to preserve water. My mother had notes on all of the faucets and, by golly, if we left the water running unnecessarily, we got yelled at. So, when we were a population of 300,000 in 1970 we had a serious water situation.
118. Comment by Jim b. (2980)— October 24,2009 @ 4:54PM
Ratings:-13+5
All of the new electric cars and infrastructure being built for solar and wind power for alternative energy will need a whole lot of copper. Guess all those jobs will have to come from somewhere else.
119. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 24,2009 @ 4:57PM
Ratings:-9+13
How much water will it take to establish plants in the tailings, if it can even be done?
Someone wrote there is a native plant that grows in mine tailings, but a mono-plant culture isn't good wildlife habitat, and it was an aggressive plant species, which might compete out other plants that miracuously might grow.
And if it doesn't already grow in the area, it's best not to introduce it, unless other natives can eventually take over in time.
Rosemont has more negatives, than positives. It is the wrong mine, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Where's Chris -- Like everyone else, I'm waiting for an answer to why it's OK to mine the Santa Ritas, and not the Rincons or Santa Catalinas. ACTUALLY -- NONE OF THEM SHOUL BE MINED (including the Tucson Mts) -- they supply a big part of our ground water -- can't drink copper.
120. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 24,2009 @ 5:07PM
Ratings:-8+11
#116, Hilda,
What we had was a serious infrastructure problem -- COT hadn't kept up with needed upgrading of the water mains, so the mains were undersized, and could NOT carry enough water a peak hours -- water pressure, and water delivery would go to a trickle.
That's when "Beat the Peak" was invented.
They tried to use 'water conservation in the desert' reason, but it was really their water pipes that couldn't carry the capacity needed for the demand, created by population and industry growth.
Now, they want use to conserve more, and drink sewer to tap water, so industries like the mines, that need tons of water (in this desert), can use the better water. Yeah, they love us citizens -- pee water for us, only the best for community destroying mining!
121. Comment by Rowan D. (RowD1)— October 24,2009 @ 5:24PM
Ratings:-11+5
Better start playing nice with the Chinese; a half billion HFC-23-fired new home and auto air conditioners coming online over the next 20 years will wipe out all the gains from the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) Ya'll are so impressed with and then some.
Table 1: Global Warming Potentials (100 Year Time Horizon)
123. Comment by Richard C. (RC)— October 24,2009 @ 5:36PM
Ratings:-6+16
I don't care if it is a Canadian company or a US company, we cannot afford the water to be taken away and contaminated. There has already been too much of that making many areas unable to use the water that is there and the plumes are moving. We cannot allow more water to be drawn from the aquifer and more contamination to happen.
They are going to leach copper at this mine, how will they prevent any of the sulfuric acid from getting into the water table? Accidents happen, who will pay in the end? We will the people who live here.
124. Comment by Jefferson C. (commandermarcos)— October 24,2009 @ 5:46PM
Ratings:-16+8
Water use by Rosemont pales into insignificance when compared to use by future population growth and is approximately equal to water use by tourists visiting our area. Rosemont offers to replace the water it uses by CAP purchases; neither of these alternate uses do.
125. Comment by Jefferson C. (commandermarcos)— October 24,2009 @ 6:00PM
Ratings:-17+7
Re: comment 123 (Richard C.)
The leach pad will be underlined with impermeable plastic. In this sense, the water table is better protected from sulfuric acid than it is from wastes treated at the Swee****er plant here in town.
Secondly, the rock in the mine area has a high capacity to buffer sulfuric acid. Rock neutralizes acid long before it can affect our water quality.
126. Comment by Elizabeth W. (TVC)— October 24,2009 @ 7:52PM
Ratings:-6+9
I dunno if David Briggs will read this but I want to say publically that I have respect for him. We rarely if ever agree on anything but he doesn't hide behind a screen name.
Mr. Briggs (if you are reading this) thanks for coming up to say hello today.
It was a long day filled with a lot of emotions on both sides.
127. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)— October 24,2009 @ 8:00PM
Ratings:-6+10
#108 - your statement:
"The sooner that you folks understand private property rights, the better off you will be."
Very interesting.....You know, I somewhat agree, EXCEPT for the fact that they CAN'T build the mine on THEIR private property, so.......
Until they have approval from the U.S.Forest service, they have NO rights in my opinion.
They do NOT have to comply with the "private property" laws that the rest of us do. When they do, I will consider them a private property owners like the rest of us.
130. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)— October 24,2009 @ 8:17PM
Ratings:-7+8
Re: Water use by Rosemont pales into insignificance when compared to use by future population growth and is approximately equal to water use by tourists visiting our area. Rosemont offers to replace the water it uses by CAP purchases; neither of these alternate uses do.
Well, I've read this at least four times and I'm just not gettin' it. So, like Rosemont is a good thing? They "offer" to replace our well/ground water with CAP? Tourists are bad?
The jobs in the surounding areas, as a result of tourism, is being compared to the jobs of Rosemont.
Don't even tell me that tourists use more water than Rosemont would.
131. Comment by Joe j. (We Be Tucson)— October 24,2009 @ 8:21PM
Ratings:-5+9
CAP was brought to Tucson (on the back of taxpayers) to be used as a drinking water supply, not to be sucked up by Rosemont mine. The first plans for CAP was as a water supply for southern Arizona agriculture, not to be sucked up by Rosemont mine. The one million Tucson water users and tax payers do have a say so in the way CAP is used. The Rosemont CAP exchange is about to be revisited. No one is going to set back and allow Rosemont to damage our economy, be it agriculture, tourism, or real-estate development.
137. Comment by David B. (David F Briggs)— October 24,2009 @ 9:33PM
Ratings:-8+3
To Elizabeth W. (126)
Thank you for your gracious comment. It was good to finally have a chance to meet you. Quite an interesting day in Elgin and Green Valley don’t you think? I had a chance to meet a number of people on both sides of the issue. While we may not see eye to eye on the Rosemont project, there are probably other issues where we can find ourselves on the same side of the fence. I continue to follow the comments in many of these forums and have always found your injection of humor into these discussions quite refreshing, particularly your comments about salty snacks.
138. Comment by Catherine C. (5158)— October 24,2009 @ 9:43PM
Ratings:-9+3
#48, if you are worried about superfund sites, what about the Gifford's family toxic waste dump downtown that the taxpayers spent $800,000 cleaning up and the City of Tucson now leases from her for $150,000 per year. And it sits empty!
140. Comment by Elizabeth W. (TVC)— October 24,2009 @ 10:44PM
Ratings:-7+2
I have a question though, in all seriousness because I do not understand.
I was told today that the area under the waste rock and tailings is not modeled for copper.
If that is the case, then how can the 12 thousand unpatented mining claims be used?
Are there other minerals there instead? I think I also heard there are different kinds of patents but I thought all of the patents held by Rosemont Copper are mineral patents?
141. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— October 25,2009 @ 10:30AM
Ratings:-7+1
114. Comment by Don M. (saffronbindy)
Well you just found two that do. Incidently, I don't think you actually have soft or hardware that does what you claim and are simply attempting to impunge my credibility as an environmentalist who supports the Rosemont project.
I can tell you what Chris does in his writing that I don't and it is glaringly obvious to most people, especially english majors or literary students. He was taught to diagram a sentence and it shows in his text as his brain organized his sentences basically following the rules. I don't diagram and sometimes reverse a sentence. This evolved from a certain type of job I had at one time and will effect my writing until the day I die. So stop the Bullcrap and lies.
143. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— October 25,2009 @ 11:20AM
Ratings:-7+2
119. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
It is all part of the 5,000 acre ft. What part don't you understand or choose not to.
Anti-mine posters keep talking about the mine tails south or Tucson and west of Green Valley and ask why there are no plants on them.
The re-vegetation projects were enacted long after the over burden and tails were in place. Simply put, the top soil (alluvium and colluvium) was buried under millions of tons of dirt, gravels (pediments) and tailings.
Now you may be asking, what’s the difference between alluvium and colluvium and pediments? alluvium and colluvium are that portion of valley fill that during erosion and valley migration, has been recently (1.8 my to CE) enriched by carbonaceous material that must exist for soil to support plant life, The pediment deposits that occur beneath this zone contain few nutrients. These pediments are from the Tertiary and Quaternary ages (1.8-65 million years of age).
Pediments in mine dumps that appear to be viable top soil are visible around green valley. However that material is unable to sustain vegetation without large amounts of artificial enrichment and that makes the cost prohibitive until the mines shut down and the dumps can be used for housing.
The historic programs experimented with and included silly ideas such as planting eucalyptus trees (shallow roots and blown over easily) Straw and seeding (no nutrients) and one promising program that the dumps for cattle corrals with Bermuda and alfalfa hay. In those areas grass is appearing when the cattle are moved.
At Rosemont the top soil will be set aside and saved so when needed it will be used to cover the barren tails, rock and soil and will easily support the same vegetation the area supports today.
144. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— October 25,2009 @ 2:23PM
Ratings:-2+6
In 2005 the Bureau of Land Management made a decision of "no action" on an application for a mine in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. "No Action" is a viable choice by the National Forest
145. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— October 25,2009 @ 2:46PM
Ratings:-7+2
The BLM is not the USFS, don’t confuse the two. The USFS controls areas that are not forested and the BLM controls millions of acres of forested lands. Yes it can be a bit confusing. Driving through a beautiful forest and seeing USFS signs and suddenly you see BLM signs and are in another named forest.. The BLM is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior. The USFS is under the Department of Agriculture. These agencies have two separate sets of sub-rules when dealing with NEPA.
Rosemont is in the Coronado Forest, managed by the USFS
146. Comment by karen b. (kaylee)— October 25,2009 @ 7:53PM
Ratings:-1+7
IN answer to August B No. 87
You sound like you are a representative from the Augusta mines. (The Canadian mining firm.) Your laws in Canda have been revised about 12 years ago. You are misleading the people here in SO. AZ. Rape your own land not ours. I am a former Canadian citizen who saw the devastation of mining in Canada.
147. Comment by Matt D. (primematt)— October 26,2009 @ 5:11PM
Ratings:-5+1
Devastation my butt, I'm from Alberta and we have some of the largest strip mines in the world (the oil sands) there's roughly 100 billion dollars in new projects waiting to be built (a lot by US companies Exxon, Conoco ect), we cant build them fast enough, any politician that even hints at stopping them would get ran out of the province. Our unemployemnt normal is around 5% and the standard of living is very high. Bring on the mine
148. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)— October 26,2009 @ 6:37PM
Ratings:-1+4
147. Comment by Matt D. (primematt) — October 26,2009 @ 5:11PM
Ratings: -1 +0
Devastation my butt, I'm from Alberta and we have some of the largest strip mines in the world (the oil sands) there's roughly 100 billion dollars in new projects waiting to be built (a lot by US companies Exxon, Conoco ect), we cant build them fast enough, any politician that even hints at stopping them would get ran out of the province. Our unemployemnt normal is around 5% and the standard of living is very high. Bring on the mine
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
What he is talking about is complete annihilation of forest lands in Canada for hundreds of square miles, creating a barren wasteland. It is a travesty, all for oil profits. I'm betting Canada doesn't have antiquated mining and drilling laws, and get richly reimbursed by American companies set up in Canada, whereas we get next to nothing from foreign countries for our natural resources they export, and the profits they export too. A few jobs is not worth this unbalanced, unhealthy exchange for America.
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.
US will consider option for no Rosemont mine
After drawing sharp criticism from Rosemont Mine opponents, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack on Friday said his office made a mistake in sending out a letter saying that it can't legally approve a "no action" alternative for the mine in the Santa Rita Mountains.Readers: This is a reminder to follow our guidelines in posting comments. In the recent past, comment threads about mining have been a hotbed of ad hominem attacks and other inappropriate posts.
Those who click on the "Report this comment" link frivolously, or in an attempt to silence opposing viewpoints, will lose their privileges.
For all the complaining the environmentalists do over this issue,it's not gonna really matter once we default on our interest payments on our Chinese debt, Sadly after that happens,it won't take much for China to take us into slavery that the clowns in DC sold us into and then turn around and drain the natural resources we could have used to reduce our country's dependence on ANYTHING foreign,really stimulated our economy,and possibly eliminated some of our increasingly suffocating national debt.
Report this comment
Johanna,
This is NOT an ad hominem attack - I just do NOT trust a word Vilsack says - now or ever!
Report this comment
If taking trailings (white mineral laden paste) and waste rock. Then spreading it out over 4,000 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 and all the people here. 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 does. 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, and the U.S. Forrest Service.
Report this comment
There is no justification to destroy public land by allowing Rosemont to proceed.
There is no justification, because if Rosemont is allowed to proceed by the U.S. Gov't over major opposition from just about everybody, the mine will take value from nearby private real estate, it will destroy wildlife populations, it will suck the water table down, it will increase traffic on roads to and from the area, it will diminish tourism to Patagonia, Sonoita and Elgin and, as Nighthawk points out, will desecrate holy places.
Rosemont Mine is a terrible idea that must NOT be permitted.
Report this comment
This is called a flip flop and is troubling because it seems no one in the Obama administration is able to make hard decisions.
They say one thing then as soon as the liberals get their panties in a bunch Obama and his team flip flop to the other side.
It is as if they don't have a mind of their own and are running the government based on what the far left MoveOn types want to the point that the Obama so called leaders hide under their bed at night.
Now they are flip flopping like a fish out of water about what the law says.
What is the problem with Obama? It's a simple law written in simple words but they can't seem to understand it.
Report this comment
Arizona started as a mining state. In the late 1800’s the mines started producing copper and other metals, allowing the state to prosper.
Jobs do not appear to be important to Nighthawk or Richard.
Sacred lands? Current Indians were pushed by others from the better plains areas by other Indians on a few hundred years ago. How can the land be sacred to them?
It would be nice to have more money in the local economy. Under current rules the land MUST be reclaimed at the end of the life of the mine and money set aside for that.
Yes, mining is not always as nice as persons for California would like, but jobs for the state are somewhat important too.
Shame Gabby does not want more jobs for southern Arizona.
Report this comment
If Rosemont Mine, a desecration of the Santa Ritas, water, land and air pollution, wildlife destruction, and dumping on our public land is allowed to go forward, our great-grandchildren will, in disgust, be asking, “Who allowed this, and to what purpose?”
Report this comment
Much of the opposition to Rosemont seems to be driven by fears about the effect the mine may have on local tourism. I just can't see this. Tucson's tourism industry coexists with the existing mines at Sierrita and Mission, which are closer to Tucson and have much greater visual impact that Rosemont will.
I wonder which community earns more from toursim - Green valley which sits on the edge of the copper mine, or Elgin.
(Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the only reason Elgin exists is that it was one of the state's early mining districts.)
Report this comment
Reply to Norma F. (#8)
I wonder what our grandchildren will be doing for a living. Selling knickknacks to tourists from places that have real industry?
Report this comment
You're worried about what your great grand children will be thinking Norma?
At the rate we are going your grand children will be told what to think and when to do it, your great grand children will probably be aborted.
This Obamachange is a mess to think about. The way they are approaching all issues that come before them looks like Amateur Hour in magnification.
Just look at what this mine and it's production will do for "cap and trade".
Report this comment
The fix is in.
Report this comment
So let's ship all of our jobs to China, and let's not produce anything here in the good old USA. The environmental wacos can then keep everything looking the same, and we can worship the rocks and trees.
Report this comment
I was not aware that Elgin AZ had any mining near it. It was on the Fairbank-Nogales railroad line, and served as a section headquarters, along with a cattle shipping point, but, mining center, I don't think so.
Report this comment
Looks like no matter which way this goes, somebody is going to get sued. Just one more link to the american trial lawyers full employment act.
Report this comment
Desert Survival Primer
Water
Deserts are defined by their lack of water. Learn to ration sweat, not water. By staying in the shade, limiting activity to cooler times such as night and using your available water, your chances for survival increase greatly. Sipping water does not get it to the brain and vital organs. Take a good drink when you need it. People have been found dead from dehydration with water in their canteens. Also, do not rely on "parlor tricks" such as solar stills as a primary source. These will often produce more sweat digging the hole than is obtained from water gained. Learn to locate water through areas of green vegetation, flights of birds, converging animal trails and digging in the outside bends of dry creek beds. Javelinas and burros are excellent at finding water and digging it up in creek beds. Best of all, plan ahead, and allow one gallon per person a day. This does not include your needs for cooking, pets or auto maintenance.
Report this comment
I don't think the opposition is related to effect on tourism. It's related to memories of Pike Hill, Ely, Salt Chuck, Kennecott, and other sources of industrial mining indiscretion, and despite what Rosemont says there will be spills, there will be leaching, and they will be burying discarded tires with all that waste rock (according to their own MPO). Not to mention the unconscionable amount of water they will be using.
We live in the desert and are told to conserve, conserve, conserve! Yet the mining companies have ALWAYS had unrestricted access to ground water.
If the mine proceeds, they purchased 14000 acres of land , roughly 22 square miles. Why cant they pile their stuff in their own property and not on public land?
I don't trust them to do the reclamation they promised either. Many open pit mines have only a few people to do the reclamation work and those mines are still a scar 20 or more years after the fact. Judging by PAST performance of many other mines why would this one be ANY different. It will become a SUPERFUND cleanup site and the US taxpayers will be picking up the tab.
They'll open a scar more than a mile wide (apparently one of the 3rd or 4th LARGEST mines in the world). They said this will inject 745 million into our local economy, but I haven't seen the basis for that figure to be a reality. The money they make off Arizona Copper will not benefit Pima County, it will benefit a select few at the expense of beautiful land and watershed ruined forever. The money wil be gone in a hundred years but the scar of the mine and tailings wont...
Report this comment
johanna is a redd starr producer
wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
no we'll just keep typing away
BTW the 1872 DOESN'T ALLOW FOR HIM TO SAY NO MINE
just no option
delay tactics
but the LAW has teeth that even the feds can't stop
UNLESS THEY CHANGE THE LAW
and with unfunded health care, carbon tax, etc.
I see no will for our immoral and corrupt govt to change big business ways
as I have said many times
ONLY THE PRICE OF COPPER BELOW $2.00 will stop this mine
Report this comment
ghost town usa. tourist love to visit mines, check bisbee out.
Report this comment
#6 - Again, I am a conservative opposing this mine.
Tourists do NOT love to visit mines. People go to Bisbee for the arts and antique shops and the mine happens to be there. The proposed Rosemont mine will be much larger than Bisbee's. That should give everyone an idea of what this eyesore will look like from miles and miles. It will also give people and idea of the mess they leave behind.
Tourism, Elgin wineries, birding, hiking, hunting, ATV'ing, boating @ Patagonia & Parker lakes, bicycling, motorcycling and simply enjoying a drive down Scenic Hwy. 83 will all be gone. And, along with it, will be the businesses, their jobs and the community. The mine employees will not keep the businesses alive.
The mine would operate 24/7, every day of the year. As everyone knows, Rosemont cannot be trusted. They scheme to give the phony front that people actually want this mine.
They cannot be trusted for containing dust, noise, lighting, etc.
This particular mine should not happen. People can't sell their properties, as it is just because of it's possiblity. Want proof? Just talk to any real estate agent in the area. Nobody, in this area, wants to live near a mine. The community was here first, unlike most mining towns which were built because OF the mine. Then, once the mine closed, so did many of the towns - or they have trouble existing like many of them do now.
Then, again, there's the water. We have no guarantee that CAP water will be around during the life of this mine. Besides, we don't want CAP water.
This mine is projected to be only 18 years. That's it. Unless, of course, you take in to consideration the other 3 mines that they are trying to keep under the radar that are very close to the proposed Rosemont site. Can't wait to see those big TEP transmission lines too. Won't that look lovely.
Run Rosemont out of Pima County.
Report this comment
The "no action" option supported by Congressman Raul Grijalva and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords would essentially grant the U.S. Forest Service a discretionary right to halt the Rosemont copper project, even if Rosemont Copper could have otherwise been able to comply with all federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations and had been able to successfully complete the permitting process. This would be a political decision based entirely on emotion and not on the technical merits of the proposed plan of operation. Although the “no action” option clearly violates U.S. law, undue political pressure has now forced Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack to reverse previously stated Forest Service policy.
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. Without some assurance that a property could be mined if economic mineralization was discovered at a site, no mining company would invest the capital required to explore or develop the property. The risks are simply too great. 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.
Link to Article Supporting this statement:
http://www.admmr.state.az.us/Publications/sr24MinProdRosemont.pdf
Report this comment
Y cant we report the first comment??? So in other words, listen children play nice or u will be taken to the wood shed. What a joke...
Report this comment
"I wonder which community earns more from toursim - Green valley which sits on the edge of the copper mine, or Elgin." Commander Marcos, 9
Let's survey our posters' views of the effects of mining on the outskirts of Green Valley. Is this what we want more of, in one of the most beautiful areas in Southern Arizona?
Are 400 medium wage jobs worth leaving a legacy rivaling that of the mining around Green Valley?
Does the prospect of operations ending before "reclamation" begins (as the price of copper plummets) bother the small minority who support this plunder bother anyone?
Does anyone believe the words of a Canadian company that has never operated a mine and has no track record to evaluate has have any validity?
Sorry for the rhetorical questions but really, put this up for a vote.
Report this comment
#17 - already they can't be trusted. They've already bladed, down to bare dirt, about 8+ acreas, in two areas. It can be clearly seen, on Hwy. 83. Permit or not, this is premature since they have no ok on using Federal forest lands which they must have for their mine.
This was an "in your face" action and they did this on purpose. These people are truly dispicable.
Report this comment
First line from the Elgin page on the patagoniaaz web site:
Step Back...to a place steeped in the mining, ranching, and railroad history that built the West.
Mining sells tourism. More than ranching, and more than "rilroad history".
Report this comment
If you really sit down and look at the science, one reason many of your copper deposits here is the southwest are economic is because of the arid-semi-arid climate is conducive to concentrating the low grade primary copper mineralization in many of these deposits into large high grade secondary copper deposits.
Report this comment
I care about the jobs in the Sonoita and surrounding communities (which will be lost due to the proposed mine), not those of the Rosemont employees.
I just love that word "reclaimed". Sounds like putting the property back to it's original condition or close to it. Have you ever seen an open pit copper mine that's been reclaimed? I haven't. Probably because it's impossible to do.
Now someone will say "Rosemont" is on the cutting edge of technology. Baloney.
Report this comment
Hilda G-
I started laughing when I heard the small group supporting this mine characterizing the anti-Rosemont Copper folks as
"Wacos"
and
"Liberals"
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Report this comment
dispicable == All I can think of is sylvester the cat.
Thanks for the belly laugh this morning.
Report this comment
With an unemployment rate of 17.2% in Santa Cruz county, you would think more people in Patagonia and Sonoita would welcome the jobs the mine would bring to the area.
Report this comment
No, no a thousand times no! Clear enough?
Report this comment
Some people care for more than a short term gain for a few at the expense of others.
As a reminder, the proposed project is in the Vail School District.
Report this comment
Denial of domestic natural resource projects for no other reason than having to deal with the perceived negative impacts a project might have on one’s community only serves to perpetuate many foreigner’s image of the “Ugly American”, who is selfish, overindulgent and inconsiderate of the implications their self-serving decisions have on the rest of the world. And forcing mining projects overseas, where environmental laws are less stringent or non-existent, just so we can enjoy the benefits that mining provides without dealing with any of its consequences is about as ugly as it gets.
I would like to think that Americans would at some point change their attitude with regard to this issue. However, considering the opposition to the Rosemont copper project as well as many other domestic natural resource ventures, this is not going to happen any time soon. All I can only hope for is that those who oppose domestic natural resource projects will some day take a honest look at their motives and come to realize that the rest of the world was not created to solely fulfill their needs.
Report this comment
Y would they welcome jobs, that means they would have to work, then they would have no time for there meth labs and other illegal activity...
Report this comment
28 TVC
I'm far from a liberal!
Report this comment
as far as 'wacos' there are posters that make veiled threats from the pro mining stance...
Report this comment
#7 Ralph S. wrote: Arizona started as a mining state. In the late 1800’s the mines started producing copper and other metals, allowing the state to prosper.
Jobs do not appear to be important to Nighthawk or Richard.
In the late 1800s it was not possible to create the amount of damage Rosemont will do by taking out so many tons of ore from our forest. The mining law is antiquated.
400 jobs can NEVER justify the environmental destruction Rosemont mine will cause!
Report this comment
I'm wondering Chris J,if copper deposits were diacovered in and around Gates Pass, if you would support an open pit mine there?
Report this comment
Chris J: re #21
"undue political pressure"
Your "undue" political pressure is real Arizonans screaming about the quality of their life, and their real estate values, being seriously degraded.
When I was searching for land to buy to build my house on, I didn't buy land in that area specifically because of the proposed mine. I bought land somewhere else. I feel sorry for all those folks who can't sell their property now.
"This would be a political decision based entirely on emotion and not on the technical merits of the proposed plan of operation."
Well yea, I'd get emotional when the explosions, my dry well, and the loss of life savings (house) were driving me stark-raving-lunatic crazy!
Emotional is not a bad word. The best parts of life are the ones where we have a positive emotional experience. The worst parts of life are when we have a negative emotional experience.
You have the deck stacked against you because there are a lot of negative emotions attached to your mine, and very few positive ones. And the positive ones are small and the negative ones are HUGE.
Report this comment
400 medium wage jobs, #23 Harry Red Dog's quote.
I guess that is in comparison to 400 people unemployed and 1200 on welfare. Someone will mine the copper some where but by God not in my back yard.
Report this comment
To Richard S. (38)
No I would not. Nor would I support developing a large open pit mine in the Rincons or the Catalinas.
Report this comment
I would think the definition of "Ugly American" would constitute those of a mindset to be so greedy and self-indulgent as to endanger a fragile desert ecosystem for short-term monetary gain.
Mankind wasn't placed on the planet to consume it... mankind was placed on the planet to be the caretakers and stewards. Last time I checked, there wasn't another planet Earth anywhere close-by to run off too once we've finished screwing up this one.
Report this comment
Irony of the week:
"All I can only hope for is that those who oppose domestic natural resource projects will some day take a honest look at their motives and come to realize that the rest of the world was not created to solely fulfill their needs." (emphasis mine)
Report this comment
'Undue' political pressure....hmmmmm 1776?
Pressure, protest, speech...we all are allowed......
Report this comment
If you want to see an EYESORE from mining go see Morenci.
Report this comment
DOWN with the enviros.
UP with the mine and making use of our God-given US natural resources.
Report this comment
Chris 41
Explain why an open pit mine in the scenic Santa Ritas is the cat's meow but a similar venture in Gates Pass, the Catalinas and the Rincons would be off limits.
Am I missing something?
Report this comment
Go to the EPA Superfund website and search on "copper mine" and look at the number of mines that are classified as superfund sites.
http://nlquery.epa.gov/epasearch/epasearch?fld=oerrpage&areaname=superfund/&areacontacts=Superfund&areasearchurl=http://www.epa.gov/superfund/contacts/index.htm&result_template=http://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund.xsl&filter=sample3filt.hts&typeofsearch=area&querytext=copper+mine&submit=Go
Report this comment
Rosemont is the next Woburn, MA or Love Canal...
DOWN with the mine!
UP with the enviros!
Yah, thanks for the belly laugh this morning too... DETHPICABLE!!!
Report this comment
#21-Chris, you may be right but the U.S. Forest Service SHOULD have a say in how their/our land is used and they SHOULD be able to say "no". The mines COULD use all of their own property & not forest property.
Report this comment
#30 - well, they don't.
Report this comment
Chris (#41) - why not?
Report this comment
#1, come on. This is ridiculous. The attacks in Rosemont forums have been no worse than many other forums that haven't had these admonitions.
Ever since the Star co-sponsored a job fair for Rosemont, I've had doubts about its objectiveness on this issue. Heavy-handed comments from a Starnet producer don't give us more confidence.
Public opinion is strongly against this mine. Let's hope that a democracy works as it is supposed to do. No matter how many pockets Rosemont has feathered.
Report this comment
Does the potential economic benefit of the Rosemont mine outweigh the environmental damage it might cause?
Selection Votes
No,Save the Scenic Santa Ritas! 17% 14
Save our Water 69% 56
Yes, dig baby, dig! 14% 11
Need more information 0% 0
81 votes total
70 AgainstMining in the Santa Ritas
11 For Mining in the Santa Ritas
Report this comment
You know, from all the comments about water and how Rosemont will deplete the aquifer, blah, blah, blah... everyone fails to mention the current users of water, especially FICO. Do you realize that FICO uses more water in 4 years than Rosemont will use in 20? Not to long ago, FICO actually used more water than they are today (approx 30,000 acre feet per year).
Now let's take into consideration how long FICO has been "depleting" the aquifer from 30,000 to 50,000 acre feet per year? Not a comment, narry a whisper is spoken.
Kind of shows that it's NOT about the water!
Report this comment
#47 asks:
"Chris 41 - Explain why an open pit mine in the scenic Santa Ritas is the cat's meow but a similar venture in Gates Pass, the Catalinas and the Rincons would be off limits. Am I missing something?"
You are missing the fact that this poster, who has been flooding the comment sections with propaganda, probably represents the financial interests of this particular mining venture, and will say anything to support it- including pretending to oppose other possible projects for environmental reasons.
Report this comment
56 - Nah, it kind of shows that a lot of folks don't know about FICO or Farmer's Investment Company (pecan orchards)... but the fact that you brought it up means that the water table will drop faster, and just because FICO does it doesn't make it okay for Rosemont to do it too.
And, by the way, how many stinking GOLF courses do we need in the desert anyway. That's just an inane use of water in the desert, reclaimed or not! I love golf, btw!
Report this comment
_ 13. Comment by David H. (DABears) — October 24,2009 @ 6:13AM
Ratings: -17 +13
So let's ship all of our jobs to China, and let's not produce anything here in the good old USA. The environmental wacos can then keep everything looking the same, and we can worship the rocks and trees. _
THE COPPER WILL GO TO CHINA TOO
Report this comment
Chris. I am an ugly American when I stand on American soil and defend it?
Report this comment
What a difference a day makes.
We would be stupid to allow a foreign-owned mine to deplete and sell our copper for their financial benefit, with crumbs for America, since Augusta already has a sales contract with China.
China is hoarding copper -- why is that?
If they control most of the world's supply, we'll all be in big trouble.
Rosemont's reserve should be saved for our future, our protection. It would be stupid to frighten ourselves into thinking we must give China whatever it wants -- they let us fall, they fall.
It's not good for America when it's a foreign-owned mine making the profits, they take out-of-country, and sell copper they got cheap from America, to a foreign country that will increase the trade deficit by using our bargain copper in their import products to America.
A few, not well paying, not union jobs, isn't worth this community's future and surrounding mountain splendor. We might not have the most beautiful mountains on Earth, but they are our mountains, that make this area a wealth of beauty, recreation, wildlife and plant habitats, vital watershed source, and just darn nice to wake up to each morning, without huge mining scars ruining the entire experience and existence of irreplaceable wild areas.
Report this comment
2. Ed R. (scorpion447)-
For all the complaining the environmentalists do over this issue,it's not gonna really matter once we default on our interest payments on our Chinese debt
How will allowing a Canadian company to mine US resources affect our interest payments to China?
Report this comment
6. Jim J. (Jim Jones)-
This is called a flip flop and is troubling because it seems no one in the Obama administration is able to make hard decisions
This debate started WAY before anybody had even heard of Obama.
I really doubt that this little mine is even on Obama's radar.
Report this comment
9. Jefferson C. (commandermarcos)-
Much of the opposition to Rosemont seems to be driven by fears about the effect the mine may have on local tourism
My wife and I have lunch in either Patagonia or Sonoita about once a month. The only reason we go is because we enjoy the scenic drive down 83.
We won't be making that drive if we have to fight ore trucks and the view is ruined by this mine.
Report this comment
Hey, pro-Rosemonters -- just wondering what is it going to take before you admit this HIGHER ALTITUDE, MOUNTAIN MINE, AND IT'S ELECTRIC LINES, NEW HAULING ROADS, AND BILLIONS OF TONS OF LIFELESS, UGLY MINING WASTE DUMPED IN LIFELESS PILES WE CAN SEE FROM THE VALLEY will be seen across the valley, ruining thousands of people's views, property values, and the enjoyment of a scenic drive anywhere these mining scars, HIGH IN THE SKY, can be seen.
Other mines being mentioned are either tucked away or lie low, where an entire region isn't being impacted by ugly mine tailings EVERY SECOND OF EVERYDAY, and always subjected to the horror of the destruction of our wildlands.
THIS MINE WILL BE TOURIST KILLING -- ALSO BECAUSE PEOPLE COME HERE TO HIKE AND WANT TO EXPERIENCE SEEING WILDLIFE IN WILDLANDS.
I've never heard anyone say 'Oh, what beautiful mine tailings.' Most people are sickened, and saddened. THIS IS NOT HOW WE WANT TO FEEL, FOREVER, EVERY TIME WE LOOK AT THE SANTA RITA MOUNTAINS, IF THIS FOREIGN BENEFITING MINE IS ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD.
Report this comment
comment no. 2 My forefathers fought for our freedon as well as my childrens children will for our freedom.Gods resources are only what man thinks he needs which would be clean water! Not some huge hole in the ground to only leave footprints of bad decisions .And some day regret that huge hole and have polluted the water and an eyesoar on the beutiful gift of all that god gave us.So Save the Scenic Santa Ritas from destruction.For the shear purpose of GREED! for the profit of foreign lands.
Report this comment
25. Jefferson C. (commandermarcos)-
Mining sells tourism
No, HISTORY sells tourism. People visit Bisbee for the history.
I live just off of Pima Mine Rd where there is a big sign advertising "Daily Mine Tours". I don't see a lot of traffic going there.
There is also a missile silo just off of 19 that offers tours, maybe we should plant some more missiles as a way of attracting tourism.
Report this comment
Water issues are the most important issue with mine, and every type of pollution mining brings also, but I don't think people are giving credence to the fact we are greatly effected by our surroundings daily, especially our subconscious.
Destroy the beauty of our beautiful, uplifting mountains ('premium' in property valuations), we all will be negatively effected, even if you're not consciously aware of it.
Just like certain colors effect human mood, so does having, or not having, unspoiled beauty to enjoy in the area you live in. Augusta will produce ugly, permanent, ever-visually present destruction to the Santa Rita Mountains, and thus our daily views.
Augusta wants to take everything, leave devastation, and laugh all the way to their foreign bank.
Report this comment
comment 58, You are the type of person that would bend over and take it. Instead of fighting for what is yours. This is our land not foreign land remember we are tax payers . We have no choice so we have a right to protest and a right to fight for our country.
Report this comment
We don't need no stinkin' beautiful desert. Corporate profits are all that matter. While we're at it lets forget about clean air and clean water.
We want the rich to get richer at the expense of the environment. If the environment can't protect itself it doesn't deserve to cost us a single penny.
Money is always the most important consideration. Even poor people should rise up to protect those big companies from our tree hugging government.
I can't wait until Republicans get back in power and we can get back to raping the planet for profit.
Report this comment
30. CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)-
With an unemployment rate of 17.2% in Santa Cruz county, you would think more people in Patagonia and Sonoita would welcome the jobs the mine would bring to the area.
Chris - You seem to be full of pro-mine facts.
Can you site how many points will come off of that 17.2% number with this mine?
Report this comment
If we prevent this company from developing this mine (and they are an exceptionally conscientious mining company), then we also need to seriously consider a moratorium on construction of new homes,strip malls, golf courses, resorts, and parking lots. Over-building of this fragile environment is draining our water table (and using copper) and ruining a once lovely town. Calculate the acres covered by parking lots and big box stores. Gads! We have problems bigger than this mine, and this one issue is becoming a bit of a smoke screen to take attention away from other issues. What about all the new homes which have been built at the Sonoita turn off? Why isn't anyone screaming bloody murder about the land being bladed and habit being destroyed for new construction?
Report this comment
33. CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)-
Denial of domestic natural resource projects for no other reason than having to deal with the perceived negative impacts a project might have on one’s community
How about the actual negative impacts?
I have many objections to this mine, but my main concern is water.
We live in a desert and already have to import much of the water we use. We can't afford the water that Rosemont will take.
Report this comment
41. CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)-
No I would not. Nor would I support developing a large open pit mine in the Rincons or the Catalinas.
I find that very interesting. What's different about the Rincons or Catalinas?
Report this comment
There is nothing that says the "best use" of our national forest lands is mining dump site.
What Agusta needs is a place to dump it's waste from their private property mine -- tough luck -- that's not the "best use" of the Santa Ritas' USFS land. Their arrogance regarding their demand is astounding.
We need our water, our beauty, and peace and quite to enjoy this special area -- not constant explosions, massive machinery sounds, plus dangerous traffic due to a mine that is for foreign profit mostly. It will be an 'industrial' nightmare, where there once was natural, restful beauty, and wildlife and flora.
We would be the 'third world' players, if this madness is allowed to go through.
The size of the mine itself will be devasting, why should we give away priceless USFS land for a foreign company to sell to China? China -- yeh, let's help them hog most of the world's copper -- like China hasn't wanted to control the world if it could. Yeh, let's do what China wants, they have our best interest at heart always (sarcasm).
Report this comment
Well it would seem the chief proponent of the Rosemont mining operation can't or will not explain why he wouldn't support mining in Gates Pass (Tucson Mountains), the Rincons or the Catalinas.
I mean really Chris, all things being equal, why are the latter sites sacrosanct while the Santa Ritas are open for business? What criteria are you employing to reach this decision?
Report this comment
73. Comment by leslie d. (LD) — October 24,2009 @ 10:03AM
Ratings: -0 +2
41. CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)-
No I would not. Nor would I support developing a large open pit mine in the Rincons or the Catalinas.
I find that very interesting. What's different about the Rincons or Catalinas?
Report this comment
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Twenty bucks, CHRIS J. owners property with scenic views of these two mountain ranges, but no view of the Santa Ritas. As an insider, he'll know when to put his property up for sale, if any mine looks like it would be granted that would effect his property. I'm waiting to read Chris's response.
Report this comment
Sukie,
Don't hold your breath. Obviously we have hit a nerve.
Report this comment
After hundreds of posts promoting the Rosemont mining project, and pretending there are no environmental problems, CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) has finally talked himself into a corner. He (or she) has slipped up!
The reason he wouldn't support mines in the Rincons or Catalinas has nothing to do with his concern for the environment. It's simply because they would be competition for the mine project he represents. But he can't admit that. His response, if it ever comes, will be interesting.
Report this comment
I read years ago that it was unsafe to drink water from ANY stream in the Colorado Rocky Mountains because all streams were polluted by mining operations and drinking could lead to health problems and even death.
I do not know for a fact but SUSPECT that these pollutants from Rosemont would eventually work their way into the Tucson underground water supply. IF they do the wise thing would be to move everyone away from Tucson.
I worked my way through school working summers at iron mines in MINN so I ... like mines. But to mine so near a major city whose entire life depends on this one underground water supply seems dangerous to me. Jobs and profits mean little in the desert if you can't drink any water.
Report this comment
Tourists are interested in OLD mining history -- it's a curiosity.
Residents and tourists aren't in support of new mining, that will ruin the area where the old mining thankfully stopped.
What was, does not justify what the new, massive destruction would be from today's mining, especially a higher altitude huge pit mine with enormous lifeless tailings everywhere.
And never forget how much water all mining uses, even these so-called newer, improved methods.
The improvements don't amount to a hill of beans.
I remember when they promised the Green Valley mines near I-19 weren't going to be an eyesore, because they were going to vegetate those hugh tailigs -- just like they are promising at Rosemont.
They ran some sorry experiments at the Green Valley tailings too -- just like they are doing those experimental tests at Rosemont.
ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS -- AND BARE, DEADLY TAILINGS FOR THE ARIZONA WINDS TO KICK UP AND CAUSE 'POLLUTION ALERTS.'
The feds put up a new monitoring station in Green Valley about a year and a half ago -- finally -- so hopefully more of the truth of how deadly and volumous mine air pollutants can be monitored.
The State Legislature, though is illegally planning to halt air monitoring as a budget cutback. Ain't they grand (not).
Report this comment
41. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) — October 24,2009 @ 7:46AM
Ratings: -12 +4
To Richard S. (38)
No I would not. Nor would I support developing a large open pit mine in the Rincons or the Catalinas.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
75. Comment by Richard S. (Harry Red Dog) — October 24,2009 @ 10:22AM
Ratings: -1 +2
Well it would seem the chief proponent of the Rosemont mining operation can't or will not explain why he wouldn't support mining in Gates Pass (Tucson Mountains), the Rincons or the Catalinas.
I mean really Chris, all things being equal, why are the latter sites sacrosanct while the Santa Ritas are open for business? What criteria are you employing to reach this decision?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Where, oh, where is our ever-present, always quick with a comeback, Chris? We are very interested in your answer to Richard's question. Am I close -- see question #76.
Report this comment
start the tractors.. get this process underway.
Report this comment
green valley was started and grew to what is there now in the shadow of the mines. The loss, "Twin Buttes" which was buried.. I liked the little town, but the mines of served the state and its people. Mine it and they will come.
Report this comment
#46 James J.S.: "DOWN with the enviros.
UP with the mine and making use of our God-given US natural resources."
If you think it is God's plan to blast a mile deep hole in the ground, you are sadly mistaken. Why would you support the greed of this Canadian corporation who doesn't give a rat's butt about our beautiful land? Why WOULDN'T you support the land that God has so generously given us and wants us to protect for future generations? What is it about you and those like you who care more about money than about poisoning our water, and air? Do you think jobs will be the number one priority when there is no water to drink? If being an "enviro" means respecting by protecting this beautiful area, then I gladly call myself an enviro.
Report this comment
Contrary to the constant yammer here that the Rosemont area is environmentally sensitive, it is in fact an area that has be mined, logged and ranched for over 150 years. The trees and Juniper were cut out for fence lines, smelter fuel and fireplaces. Before Rosemont closed access to much of the property, on any sunny weekend the area hummed 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 recommendation of Pima County Administrator and creator of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP), Chuck Huckelberry, refused to purchase the land.
The SDCP committee leader Dr. Maeveen Behan, Deputy Director of Natural Resources of the Pima County Parks and Recreation Department and Professor at the University of Arizona helped in the surface resource evaluation and determination that the aquifers of the district would not be effected by ground water pumping nor would the flow of the Pantano watershed and most of the watershed is to the north and downstream from the proposed mine site.
Her outstanding work leading the Pima County Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan has been recognized by the American Planning Association and the Ahwahnee Award.
She at one time was a member of the White Cloud Council, a hard core environmental organization, funded by the Hormel brothers of canned chile fame.
It must also be recognized that not just the SDCP and Pima County have reviewed the area. The original Wilderness Act applied only to national forests, national parks, and national wildlife refuges. The Act immediately designated some areas (mostly in national forests) as wilderness and directed the Secretary of Agriculture (Forest Service) and Secretary of the Interior (National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service) to survey all lands under their jurisdiction for additional tracts that could qualify as wilderness, RARE 1 or RARE2. The Rosemont tract met none of those criteria. In 1976, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directed the Secretary of the Interior to inventory all Bureau of Land Management lands as well as identifying valuable forest lands for conservation efforts. This study was completed in 2001. Again the Rosemont area was not included for conservation effort lands. Obviously, to all rational people the Rosemont area will never meet the criteria for wilderness, roadless or even conservation lands.
Again the voices against water usage using shear hyperbole and mis-leading statements in an effort to mis-inform the uninformed. The Pecan groves south of Tucson use between 28,000 and 36,000 acre feet of water per year, Rosemont will use 5,000 acre feet per year and is mandated by the Plan of Operation to recharge 105%. One proposed development next to green valley will use 5,000 acre ft of water for 15,000 homes on 4,200 acres and another backed up next to the Tumacacori mountains will use 4,000 acre ft per year for 12,000 homes.
So, why this hue and cry about water? It is a Trojan horse. The Rosemont Mine will not impact the current stream flows or aquifers, to claim otherwise is shear hyperbole.
As for the tailings they will not be a paste or slurry but will be stripped of water by vacuum filters and dry stacked. The non-mineralized rock will be handled the same way.
Some rock will be used to back fill and in the end all tailings and side-cast rock will be covered with soil and replanted with native vegetation. Do not try to compare this with the tailings west of Green Valley as they have never been covered with top soil and properly treated prior to re-vegetation. The opposition to this mine will do untold damage to the environmental movement and if the opposition is successful we will be blamed for robbing jobs from the locals and negatively impacting the county and state economies.
Just look at what happened recently on the Hopi Reservation.
The tribes of northern Arizona (Hualapai, Navajo, Havasupai and Hopi) have all banned uranium mining on their lands but two weeks ago the Hopi Tribal Council told a number of environmental groups opposed to coal mining and coal-fired power plants to leave the reservation.
Indian Country Today reports the Hopi Tribal Council said the Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council, National Parks Conservation Association, Grand Canyon Trust, and “on-reservation organizations sponsored by or affiliated with the groups, are no longer welcome on the reservation.”
Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. supported the Hopi Council's decision, saying the environmental groups threatened the survivial of the Navajo people by pushing to close down the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona. USA Today reports that the power plant provides more than 70% of the Hopi Nation's government revenues.
This is the future of the environmental movement if we continue to allow a vocal minority to continue in opposition to rational industrial development with built in environmental protections.
Report this comment
It doesn't matter if Huckelberry didn't see fit at the time to list, or buy, Rosemont Ranch at the time they made up the hopeful 'to buy' list for the Sonoran Desert Conservation plan -- although it's a headache now. Just because the County didn't buy the land, doesn't mean surrounding USFS to Rosemont should then become a toxic mining waste dump for many square miles high up in the Santa Ritas.
Augusta-Rosemont doesn't just want to trash their property, but many square miles of USFS land.
Land worth saving in it's predominately natural state, and can be redeemed. There are important watersheds, and natural habitats in the area too.
If this USFS land is allowed to be trashed by mine's toxic tailings, it can never be redeemed. It will be almost as bad as a closed nuclear reactor site -- forever deadly and toxic. Actually, it will be worse -- it's toxic destruction will be over a greater area, it will be seen from the valley, and the toxins and tailings will be harder to contain. THE MINE IS JUST PLAIN BAD FOR THIS ENTIRE COMMUNITY'S WELL BEING.
Report this comment
Do the people of Tucson, Vail, Green Valley,and Sonota, realize that this is a Canadian mining firm that's ready to tear appart our beautiful Santa Rita mountains with their copper mine. Canadian mining laws were revised about 10 or 15 years ago, so this kind of rape to their own land would cease. Now with our own antiquated mining laws in existence there here.
Report this comment
86. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
87. Comment by karen b. (kaylee)
It appears people making uninformed and non-factual statements such as these will do anything and say anything to get their way and stop the Rosemont Mine.
This is simply wrong minded and short sighted. The environmental community is coming under increasing fire for mis-representing issues from global warming to endangered species. We need to be respected and our credibility unassailable in order to reach sustainability goals. This cannot be accomplished in one or two generations and we must not cause large population dislocations or ultimatly hardship and starvation of segments of the population. That would be a form of suicide.
Refusing this mine will cause hardship on local and state economies as well as deny well paying jobs to people in an area that is job poor. We should be supporting this mine and offering help to minimize end use impacts to the environment
Report this comment
87. Comment by karen b. (kaylee)
Canada promotes open pit mining and the government auctions off mineralized tracts for exploration and mining in the middle of areas we would consider wilderness. Canada's environmental laws are "mine friendly" with the government working hand in hand with the corporations to develop new tecnology and methods in order to minimize the mine foot print. Environmental NGOs are regulated so they cannot be irresponsible. Stop making false satements.
Report this comment
86. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
Sorry Suki, it does matter. The environmental consulting business’ in concert with the SDCP used every tool available to determine the environmental value of the land and how mining would effect the watersheds and sub-surface water resources. The determination was made and supported by the environmental organizations in and around Tucson that the area has very low environmental value and should be left to mining. In fact the SDCP land planning map designates that area reserved for mining.
Tailings contain no toxins as they have been stripped of all minerals and side-cast rock is low in all minerals otherwise it would be processed for it’s mineral content. There will be no toxic mining waste dump. Shame on you.
The land is not in a predominantly natural state. Where did you get that idea? The Rosemont area has been heavily mined for over 200 year starting with the natives through the Spanish and then the Mexicans and Americans. It has been ranched since the early 1800s with many tributaries of it’s watershed dammed for the creation of water holes and cattle tanks. In addition the land was stripped of what few trees it had for fueling local mine smelters, blacksmith shops and fire places. I must note here that the entire Rosemont area was grassland up until the early 1940s first due to grass fires and later due to wood cutting. I should also be noted that after the 1887 earthquake, aquifer levels in the Santa Cruz Valley dropped as much as 120 ft and in the San Pedro Valley the artesian wells can still be observe where none were present before. A decline in grasslands was noted shortly after this and as cattle grazing continues the invasive shrubbery and tree gained a foothold.
Once again the tailings will not be toxic. You need to stop the false statements.
There will be no radioactivity nor will the area be deadly. It will not be able to be seen from the Tucson valley nor impact the valley in any manner. The solid tailing will be contained on three sided by natural terrain and on a fourth by a rock fill.
You seem to think you can spread false inflammatory information on here and it will pass as fact. You are damaging the credibility of every responsible environmentalist by acting in this manner. I respectfully request that you stop.
Report this comment
Blog from Md
Report this comment
The endless posts by “CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)” suddenly seem to have disappeared- and been instantly replaced by a Rosemont promoter who calls himself "August B. (EcoRealist)". How odd.
Report this comment
Swallowed Up.
”Tucson, A.T., May 6, 1887 -- This place was shaken by an earthquake at 2:12 p.m. Tuesday. No one was injured, but considerable damage was done to buildings. Goods were thrown from the shelves in stores and many houses here were cracked. The shock was accompanied by a rumbling sound. Many clocks were stopped and the entire population fled to the streets terrorstricken. The court house cupola swayed like the mast of a ship in a turbulent sea and the building seemed as though it were toppling over. When the shock struck Santa Catalina mountain great slices of the mountain were torn from its side and thrown to its base. Vast clouds of dust rose above its crest 7,000 feet above the sea level at three to four miles apart. It was believed for some time that a volcano had burst out of the crest of the mountain. One towering peak known as Old Castle, a prominent landmark from Tucson, has entirely disappeared. The extent of the damage can not be told for several days.”
"A major earthquake tremor stopped all the clocks in Tombstone at 3:06 p.m. May 3, 1887. It sounded like the explosion of dynamite echoing through the town, with the earth shaking violently. People ran screaming into the streets, merchandise and glassware crashed to the floor from their shelves, gaping holes appeared in buildings on Allen Street. A reporter from the Tombstone Prospector newspaper pulled out his watch and counted the 35 seconds the earthquake lasted. Eight minutes later, a second shock of about two seconds; a third shock was hardly felt, about 4:15 p.m.”
“Water spurted up out of the ground in great fountains out in the middle of the desert where no water was before. Ten miles from Tombstone, a lake covering an acre of ground completely dried up in 20 minutes, as reported by the Tucson Citizen Weekly Newspaper of May 4, 1887.”
“Charleston was hit hard. The quake there lasted only thirty seconds, but the ground shook so violently that every building in town was damaged. Many of the adobe homes fell into the river and were swept away. A party just in from the vicinity of San Pedro river reports that the ground opened about six inches, and that water rose in places that were before perfectly dry. Some old timers say the San Pedro River's course was changed from South to North that day, that it went largely underground and locals say that the sound of rushing waters may still be heard from the inside of a cave near the site of Charleston.”
The mine is nothing compared to natural events and the damage that occurs during them.
Report this comment
Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)
EcoRealist are not Ecological friendly. They probably agree with the game and fish
Maybe the Jaguar has been seen there
There have been reported sightings in the Santa Ritas. I personally saw on in 1964 between Patagoina and Nogales, near the River. Could the Az game and fish be in with the Mine. They have not wanted to establish an area for the Jaguars. They will not release the information to the star about sightings. They are suspending study.
Maybe they know something that could keep the mine our and are hiding it.
“Jaguar team ceases work amid disputes, big cat's death”:http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/313731.php
“Jaguar-tracking data hard to come by from Game and Fish”:http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/313724.php
Report this comment
Try again
“Jaguar team ceases work amid disputes, big cat's death”:http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/313731.php
“Jaguar-tracking data hard to come by from Game and Fish”:http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/313724.php
Report this comment
92. Comment by Maria S. (abril)
I partied last night and got up late.
I am not a Rosemont Mine promoter but I do support the project. I don’t know “CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)”.
However, I understand that in order to create an environmentally friendly society that is sustainable, we must not be viewed as knee-jerk obstructionists. What I see here is some NIMBYS heavily supported by people who claim to be environmentalists using misinformation and hyperbole in attempts to panic the general public into supporting their anti-Rosemont position. This methodology is simply wrong and will cause tremendous damage to the credibility of environmentalists everywhere. Augusta Resources, due to this misinformation has now sent out an information packet to clarify and correct this misinformation. This will place environmentalists in a defensive posture attempting to explain their stance and cause many to question their credibility.
94. Comment by Mikki N. (niemicat)
The town of Patagonia is at the north slope of the Patagonia Mountains, not the Santa Rita Mountains. The Jaguar sightings are very few and have been along the U.S./Mexico border on the southern slope of the Patagonia Mountains. The other sightings have been in the Pajarita wilderness in the Atascosa Mountains to the west, also right on the border and in the Southern Baboquivari Mountains, also right along the border. The only other fairly recent sightings further north were outside of winkleman, Az back in 1992.
I also reported a sighting in the Coyote Mountains, on the reservation, in 2004.
Report this comment
Okay everybody, we can disagree here but I hope we can all support the Cats in football today.
Have a good one!
I outa here.
Report this comment
88. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist) — October 24,2009 @ 1:15PM
Ratings: -5 +2
86. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
87. Comment by karen b. (kaylee)
It appears people making uninformed and non-factual statements such as these will do anything and say anything to get their way and stop the Rosemont Mine.
Etc., etc., etc.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
August, that is just false alse, empty rhetoric, with not one fact from you, especially anything to disprove what we wrote was inaccurate or untrue. There are many substantiated facts, by many people, why the Rosemont mine permit should not be granted -- even if you try to endlessly pretend these valid arguments haven't ever been made since the mine's plans first appeared in the local news.
Yesterday I posted some links on the below link, that back up what is supposed to be considered in weighing a permit for a mine. Look here
The above post is called character assassination, trying to ruin the other person by slander, not facts, because you have nothing to back up what they say, or prove us wrong.
This happens everyday -- someone, or many, from the pro-Rosemont group start with insults, false accusations, etc., against me, in an attempt to discredit and silence me.
What are you afraid of, that you resort to these tricks to try and shut me up? The truth?
Report this comment
90. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist) — October 24,2009 @ 1:48PM
Ratings: -5 +1
Vague nothingness claims that aren't true, and a waste of anyone's time to disprove -- nice trick though, write a long spiel of half-facts and attempt to waste the other person's time disproving your totally unsubstantiated half-facts.
Paying private environmental consultants ensures you get the results you want, accurate or not. This needs to be stopped. Also, the government's stance can change with each administration, especially one as bad and corrupt as the Bush Administration, that was rubber-stamping devastation to foreign companies, making me wonder what the payback was for all those favors he ordered.
Report this comment
21. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) — writes:
"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 is simply not true. Nowhere in the study does it say there will be an annual economic impact of $745 million to Pima and Santa Cruz counties. Read the report.
The ASU study is a "flow of funds" report. They do estimate about $15.6 billion will flow through the mine over 20 years, or about $780 million a year. They discount this by interest and other things paid out to come up with the $745 million number.
Of the $15.6 billion the largest part, about $7 billion, represents investor risk. This is money "loaned" by investors (stockholders, banks, etc.) to Augusta. This is repaid to the investors through profits. Since very, very few of them live in Tucson, none of that money is coming here.
Another big portion is dividends expected to be paid to stockholders as the price of the company's shares increases. This is nothing more than a gamble, an estimate. If the price of copper drops below the $1.75/lb baseline the company predicts that money will never appear.
The next biggest part of the $15.6 billion is mine construction costs. Most of this money won't be spent here either. We produce no steel or concrete, for example. The steel will be bought from China, and the concrete from Mexico. The study does recognize some local labor will be required, but the economic impact of that is trivial.
The true local impact of the mine will be about $200 million a year. This includes about $100 million in wages (but only at peak production, which is 13 out of 20 years) and $30 million in taxes. The other $70 million goes to things like utilities, which goes to stockholders of those companies who, again, don't live here.
From a financial standpoint, in my opinion, the mine does not make sense compared to the resource destruction and risks (water) involved. And since you can never reclaim an open pit mine we will have it forever. Not a good idea...
Report this comment
99. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
Wow, glad I checked back as I was going out the door. Is this the type of person you are, waiting until you think the coast is clear to attempt a rebuttal you think will not be answered? I expected nothing less and that is why I checked back. I was right. You cannot win the debate straight up using wild statements but try to come through the back door. Your credibility is in the dump.
See Ya!
Report this comment
94. Comment by Mikki N. (niemicat),
Nothing would surprise me about what lows and unethical behavior todays AZ G & F would go to. Good thought you shared.
Wonder if Augusta donated a bunch of grant money to AZ G & F? Of some other benefit. They've certainly been spreading their money around to anyone that can help their greedy plan.
After, AZ G & F care only about "game animals" that they can sell these animal's lives for hunting and fishing permits.
Threatened and endangered species, in their minds, a forced waste of time.
AZ G & F needs a house cleaning from the top down, but Brewer, nor the current State Legislature are the ones to do it -- they will make matters even worse.
The only good thing about shutting down the jaguar group -- they shouldn't be able to carelessly murder another jaguar, but they probably will still capture and torture other big cats and bears. Most of them should be permanently fired, including any of the incompetent vets they use. Evil minds thing alike, stick together.
What a sad situation, we need to know if there are jaguars, and where they roam, but we can't share it with AZ G & F, or they're kill it, because they don't care. All their protocol is outdated and unprofessional, and they are happy to keep it that way.
Report this comment
#62, not too sure about that. Obama & his administration seems to be obsessed with FOX news. One would think that that's an issue that wouldn't be on his radar.
Report this comment
#70-great point Leslie. I was wondering the same thing but didn't have time to respond before I had to leave.
Report this comment
4 decades ago Pima County and Tucson's population was 300 thousand, today the population is close to 1 million people. I million people = 1 million water users. Water is a far more precious commodity in this desert city than copper and will continue to be more so in the future, as Tucson population continues to grow.
We don't need Rosemont pumping or contaminating our ground water, when toilet to tap is being forecast as a future alternate water supply for Tucson. Nor should CAP allotments have been handed over to Rosemont. When I jog I carry water with me not copper.
The city of Tucson was here long before Rosemont and we are the only city in the United States with a sole source aquifer. Deny the permit!
Report this comment
#71 says: (and they are an exceptionally conscientious mining company), ........
So, is that why they scraped 8 + acres, in two different areas, down to bare dirt? Where EVERYONE traveling Hwy. 83 can see it? When they don't have the go ahead for this mine?
Exceptionally conscientius mining company, my a**!
Report this comment
"So, is that why they scraped 8 + acres, in two different areas, down to bare dirt? Where EVERYONE traveling Hwy. 83 can see it? When they don't have the go ahead for this mine?"
For the same reason that someone can scrape their yard down to bare dirt: It is their land to do as they wish with. The sooner that you folks understand private property rights, the better off you will be. This country has spent too long suffering under the "mob rule" mindset used by the environmentalists and leftists.
Report this comment
#85 - I didn't think we had a guarantee of CAP water for the next 20 years.
If you were at the meeting this morning, you would have heard from some of the business owners that tourism (and, as a result, their businesses) WILL be affected if this mine proceeds and not for the positive. The Sonoran Institutes report found this to be the case too.
Report this comment
#93 - now even YOU have to admit that's a stretch!
Report this comment
The draining and contamination of our water supply will kill Tucson's economy. And this mongrel of a mine called Rosemont will go for it with out even blinking their eyes. They seem to think all entitlement belongs to them. Hey Rosemont, we don't owe you nothing, especially when it pertains to our future health and welfare. WATER!
Report this comment
August - regarding your statement.....
"will do anything and say anything to get their way and stop the Rosemont Mine."
Hmmmm. I find this interesting when Rosemont mine paid & bribed college students in to attending a public forum with Rosemont badges and getting them to sign a petition in favor of the mine. Poor things thought they were applying for jobs. Then, they weren't allowed to remove their signatures.
Report this comment
102. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist) — October 24,2009 @ 3:29PM
Ratings: -5 +2
99. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
Wow, glad I checked back as I was going out the door. Is this the type of person you are, waiting until you think the coast is clear to attempt a rebuttal you think will not be answered? I expected nothing less and that is why I checked back. I was right. You cannot win the debate straight up using wild statements but try to come through the back door. Your credibility is in the dump.
See Ya!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Character assassination -- and absurd, childish accusation. Like I'm intimidated by any of you pro-rosemonters. I just happened back to the website, saw your #88 & #89 comments, that I responded to, and posted. I hadn't scrolled down yet to see your comment about the game. Please stop the childish games, if you can, because this is a waste of the forum and everyones time.
Report this comment
92. Comment by Maria S. (abril) — writes:
"The endless posts by “CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)” suddenly seem to have disappeared- and been instantly replaced by a Rosemont promoter who calls himself "August B. (EcoRealist)". How odd."
I have written before how, as an editor, I have software which can tell me if two (or more) pieces of text were written by the same person. Your text is an individual as a fingerprint. My software is quite complex, but looks at word patterns and other things.
My software tells me it thinks the posts here today by Chris J. and August B. were written by the same person. Their posts share some very unusual traits. One of them is shared by only 2% of English writers. Another is shared by only 0.1%. It would be highly unlikely that two people sharing both of those very rare traits would show up here on the same day.
Report this comment
So, can anyone get their hands on 'the great' field project with plants, Rosemont is doing on those scraped acres?
Is it associated with the U of A? Which department? Sorry, I'm unable to do such a search at this time.
I'd love to see their plans -- which are supposed to 'green' the tailings, just like THEY DIDN'T DO ON THE GREEN VALLEY TAILINGS!
We need to see the details, since they are making the claim they can camouflage the huge mine tailing up at 4,000 feet. What a farce
Report this comment
#106-Joe........
and, as you recall - in the 60's certain Tucsonans had to water on even days and others on odd days to preserve water. My mother had notes on all of the faucets and, by golly, if we left the water running unnecessarily, we got yelled at. So, when we were a population of 300,000 in 1970 we had a serious water situation.
Report this comment
if this robing mine is stopped, I will know change is here.
Report this comment
All of the new electric cars and infrastructure being built for solar and wind power for alternative energy will need a whole lot of copper. Guess all those jobs will have to come from somewhere else.
Report this comment
How much water will it take to establish plants in the tailings, if it can even be done?
Someone wrote there is a native plant that grows in mine tailings, but a mono-plant culture isn't good wildlife habitat, and it was an aggressive plant species, which might compete out other plants that miracuously might grow.
And if it doesn't already grow in the area, it's best not to introduce it, unless other natives can eventually take over in time.
Rosemont has more negatives, than positives. It is the wrong mine, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Where's Chris -- Like everyone else, I'm waiting for an answer to why it's OK to mine the Santa Ritas, and not the Rincons or Santa Catalinas. ACTUALLY -- NONE OF THEM SHOUL BE MINED (including the Tucson Mts) -- they supply a big part of our ground water -- can't drink copper.
Report this comment
#116, Hilda,
What we had was a serious infrastructure problem -- COT hadn't kept up with needed upgrading of the water mains, so the mains were undersized, and could NOT carry enough water a peak hours -- water pressure, and water delivery would go to a trickle.
That's when "Beat the Peak" was invented.
They tried to use 'water conservation in the desert' reason, but it was really their water pipes that couldn't carry the capacity needed for the demand, created by population and industry growth.
Now, they want use to conserve more, and drink sewer to tap water, so industries like the mines, that need tons of water (in this desert), can use the better water. Yeah, they love us citizens -- pee water for us, only the best for community destroying mining!
Report this comment
Better start playing nice with the Chinese; a half billion HFC-23-fired new home and auto air conditioners coming online over the next 20 years will wipe out all the gains from the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) Ya'll are so impressed with and then some.
Table 1: Global Warming Potentials (100 Year Time Horizon)
Gas GWP (global warming potential with CO2=1)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1
Methane (CH4)* 23
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 296
HFC-23 11,700
HFC-32 550
HFC-125 3,400
HFC-134a 1,300
HFC-143a 4,300
HFC-152a 120
HFC-227ea 3,500
HFC-236fa 9,400
HFC-4310mee 1,500
CF4 5,700
C2F6 11,900
C4F10 8,600
C6F14 9,000
SF6 22,200
Report this comment
Sorry, wrong section (sigh).
Report this comment
I don't care if it is a Canadian company or a US company, we cannot afford the water to be taken away and contaminated. There has already been too much of that making many areas unable to use the water that is there and the plumes are moving. We cannot allow more water to be drawn from the aquifer and more contamination to happen.
They are going to leach copper at this mine, how will they prevent any of the sulfuric acid from getting into the water table? Accidents happen, who will pay in the end? We will the people who live here.
Report this comment
Water use by Rosemont pales into insignificance when compared to use by future population growth and is approximately equal to water use by tourists visiting our area. Rosemont offers to replace the water it uses by CAP purchases; neither of these alternate uses do.
Report this comment
Re: comment 123 (Richard C.)
The leach pad will be underlined with impermeable plastic. In this sense, the water table is better protected from sulfuric acid than it is from wastes treated at the Swee****er plant here in town.
Secondly, the rock in the mine area has a high capacity to buffer sulfuric acid. Rock neutralizes acid long before it can affect our water quality.
Report this comment
I dunno if David Briggs will read this but I want to say publically that I have respect for him. We rarely if ever agree on anything but he doesn't hide behind a screen name.
Mr. Briggs (if you are reading this) thanks for coming up to say hello today.
It was a long day filled with a lot of emotions on both sides.
Take care- off to enjoy the evening.
Report this comment
#108 - your statement:
"The sooner that you folks understand private property rights, the better off you will be."
Very interesting.....You know, I somewhat agree, EXCEPT for the fact that they CAN'T build the mine on THEIR private property, so.......
Until they have approval from the U.S.Forest service, they have NO rights in my opinion.
They do NOT have to comply with the "private property" laws that the rest of us do. When they do, I will consider them a private property owners like the rest of us.
Report this comment
#118:
The vast majority of people don't want the new electric cars and, those without sun don't want solar and those without wind don't want wind mills.
Alternative energy will need some jobs. I think the great word in this sentence is "some".
Report this comment
To Don M (114)
I'm still lurking in the shadows, but I better things to do today than to argue with you guys.
Report this comment
Re: Water use by Rosemont pales into insignificance when compared to use by future population growth and is approximately equal to water use by tourists visiting our area. Rosemont offers to replace the water it uses by CAP purchases; neither of these alternate uses do.
Well, I've read this at least four times and I'm just not gettin' it. So, like Rosemont is a good thing? They "offer" to replace our well/ground water with CAP? Tourists are bad?
The jobs in the surounding areas, as a result of tourism, is being compared to the jobs of Rosemont.
Don't even tell me that tourists use more water than Rosemont would.
I'm confused.
Report this comment
CAP was brought to Tucson (on the back of taxpayers) to be used as a drinking water supply, not to be sucked up by Rosemont mine. The first plans for CAP was as a water supply for southern Arizona agriculture, not to be sucked up by Rosemont mine. The one million Tucson water users and tax payers do have a say so in the way CAP is used. The Rosemont CAP exchange is about to be revisited. No one is going to set back and allow Rosemont to damage our economy, be it agriculture, tourism, or real-estate development.
Report this comment
#129 - Chris........aka August????
What a party pooper.
You've always had time, on all of the other days, to argue with us.
Answer the question everyone is asking.
Report this comment
I'm off.
Good night and run the Rosemont mine out of town!
Wrong time and wrong place.
Report this comment
Plastic sure wont prevent the heavy metals from reaching the ground water, nor will the rock in the mine. So much for Roseymont's leach pad.
Second time I have seen impermeable used in the last 24 hours. :(
By the way what goes down in water comes back up.
Report this comment
Good Night from this end as well.
Report this comment
Went to Tombstone today.
Fact: Lots of cars from western states were parked.
Fact: Lots of people were having a great time being touristy.
Fact: Almost every establishment I went into had a jar labeled, "Tips Please, we depend on them, thanks".
So much for the great tourist based jobs outside of Tucson.
Report this comment
To Elizabeth W. (126)
Thank you for your gracious comment. It was good to finally have a chance to meet you. Quite an interesting day in Elgin and Green Valley don’t you think? I had a chance to meet a number of people on both sides of the issue. While we may not see eye to eye on the Rosemont project, there are probably other issues where we can find ourselves on the same side of the fence. I continue to follow the comments in many of these forums and have always found your injection of humor into these discussions quite refreshing, particularly your comments about salty snacks.
Report this comment
#48, if you are worried about superfund sites, what about the Gifford's family toxic waste dump downtown that the taxpayers spent $800,000 cleaning up and the City of Tucson now leases from her for $150,000 per year. And it sits empty!
Report this comment
137. Comment by David B. (David F Briggs) — October 24,2009
L
Fortunately a friend made a salty snack (brocoli, cheese and bacon quiche) for the trip down to Elgin!
I was at a hearing (won't say where) and I wanted to thank the organization for providing salty snacks and I got into beeeeeeeeg trouble!
"Ms. Webb, we are not here for your entertainment..."
I keep the salty snacks under wraps now! ;)
Report this comment
I have a question though, in all seriousness because I do not understand.
I was told today that the area under the waste rock and tailings is not modeled for copper.
If that is the case, then how can the 12 thousand unpatented mining claims be used?
Are there other minerals there instead? I think I also heard there are different kinds of patents but I thought all of the patents held by Rosemont Copper are mineral patents?
I dunno.
Report this comment
114. Comment by Don M. (saffronbindy)
Well you just found two that do. Incidently, I don't think you actually have soft or hardware that does what you claim and are simply attempting to impunge my credibility as an environmentalist who supports the Rosemont project.
I can tell you what Chris does in his writing that I don't and it is glaringly obvious to most people, especially english majors or literary students. He was taught to diagram a sentence and it shows in his text as his brain organized his sentences basically following the rules. I don't diagram and sometimes reverse a sentence. This evolved from a certain type of job I had at one time and will effect my writing until the day I die. So stop the Bullcrap and lies.
Report this comment
Oh, by the way Don, Johanna E.the StarNet producer, has our ISP numbers and email addys at her fingertips.
Report this comment
119. Comment by Sukie W. (matchbox)
It is all part of the 5,000 acre ft. What part don't you understand or choose not to.
Anti-mine posters keep talking about the mine tails south or Tucson and west of Green Valley and ask why there are no plants on them.
The re-vegetation projects were enacted long after the over burden and tails were in place. Simply put, the top soil (alluvium and colluvium) was buried under millions of tons of dirt, gravels (pediments) and tailings.
Now you may be asking, what’s the difference between alluvium and colluvium and pediments? alluvium and colluvium are that portion of valley fill that during erosion and valley migration, has been recently (1.8 my to CE) enriched by carbonaceous material that must exist for soil to support plant life, The pediment deposits that occur beneath this zone contain few nutrients. These pediments are from the Tertiary and Quaternary ages (1.8-65 million years of age).
Pediments in mine dumps that appear to be viable top soil are visible around green valley. However that material is unable to sustain vegetation without large amounts of artificial enrichment and that makes the cost prohibitive until the mines shut down and the dumps can be used for housing.
The historic programs experimented with and included silly ideas such as planting eucalyptus trees (shallow roots and blown over easily) Straw and seeding (no nutrients) and one promising program that the dumps for cattle corrals with Bermuda and alfalfa hay. In those areas grass is appearing when the cattle are moved.
At Rosemont the top soil will be set aside and saved so when needed it will be used to cover the barren tails, rock and soil and will easily support the same vegetation the area supports today.
Report this comment
In 2005 the Bureau of Land Management made a decision of "no action" on an application for a mine in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. "No Action" is a viable choice by the National Forest
Report this comment
The BLM is not the USFS, don’t confuse the two. The USFS controls areas that are not forested and the BLM controls millions of acres of forested lands. Yes it can be a bit confusing. Driving through a beautiful forest and seeing USFS signs and suddenly you see BLM signs and are in another named forest.. The BLM is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior. The USFS is under the Department of Agriculture. These agencies have two separate sets of sub-rules when dealing with NEPA.
Rosemont is in the Coronado Forest, managed by the USFS
Report this comment
IN answer to August B No. 87
You sound like you are a representative from the Augusta mines. (The Canadian mining firm.) Your laws in Canda have been revised about 12 years ago. You are misleading the people here in SO. AZ. Rape your own land not ours. I am a former Canadian citizen who saw the devastation of mining in Canada.
Report this comment
Devastation my butt, I'm from Alberta and we have some of the largest strip mines in the world (the oil sands) there's roughly 100 billion dollars in new projects waiting to be built (a lot by US companies Exxon, Conoco ect), we cant build them fast enough, any politician that even hints at stopping them would get ran out of the province. Our unemployemnt normal is around 5% and the standard of living is very high. Bring on the mine
Report this comment
147. Comment by Matt D. (primematt) — October 26,2009 @ 5:11PM
Ratings: -1 +0
Devastation my butt, I'm from Alberta and we have some of the largest strip mines in the world (the oil sands) there's roughly 100 billion dollars in new projects waiting to be built (a lot by US companies Exxon, Conoco ect), we cant build them fast enough, any politician that even hints at stopping them would get ran out of the province. Our unemployemnt normal is around 5% and the standard of living is very high. Bring on the mine
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
What he is talking about is complete annihilation of forest lands in Canada for hundreds of square miles, creating a barren wasteland. It is a travesty, all for oil profits. I'm betting Canada doesn't have antiquated mining and drilling laws, and get richly reimbursed by American companies set up in Canada, whereas we get next to nothing from foreign countries for our natural resources they export, and the profits they export too. A few jobs is not worth this unbalanced, unhealthy exchange for America.
Report this comment
Yes it is, as it always will be
Report this comment