As a frequent visitor to Pima County over the past 20 years, I have an appreciation for the people, beauty and history of the area. More than 50 years of copper production is part of that history. Thus, I am surprised that so many people are expressing opposition to the proposed Rosemont copper mine before the agencies have completed their initial evaluation of the mine's plan of operations.
1. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 12:32AM
Ratings:-59+31
The U.S. metals mining industry operates under the highest level of environmental regulation in the world, which include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, as well as numerous other federal, state and local regulations. It is our domestic mining industry's compliance with these laws, which makes its domestic operations some of the most environmentally and socially responsible mining projects in the world.
The impacts to which so many of you fear are a continuing legacy of mining's past, which occurred prior to major environmental legislation of the 1970's. In this respect mining is no different from any other industry. It is unfair for the anti-Rosemont folks to use this issue to condemn an industry, which has made significant environmental and social achievements in correcting its past legacies over the last four decades. Mining operations currently being designed and placed into production today are not the same types of mines that were designed 100 years ago or even 50 years ago.
Even existing mining operations, like Mission and Sierrita, which began production during the 1950's, were designed and developed at a time when environmental laws and regulations were still in their infancy or non-existent. Although these mines have incorporated changes in their operations over the years in order to remain in compliance with ever changing environmental legislation and regulations, they have experienced some environmental problems, which are in part a result of original design flaws that occurred at time, when environmental regulations were less stringent and our knowledge of environmental sciences was less well developed than today. That being said, these current operations are dealing with these environmental issues using the best methods currently available, considering their limitations.
Modern operations (i.e. Safford, Carlotta, and Rosemont) incorporate all of the new technology and mining practices that have been developed over the years to ensure that they are designed, developed, operated and reclaimed in the safest and environmentally responsible manner possible.
Many of the Rosemont Copper personnel and the supporters of the proposed Rosemont copper project are also citizens of this community and share the same values as the folks, who oppose this mining project. We support the Rosemont project because we seen the efforts Augusta Resource has taken to ensure that it will be done in a safe, environmentally and socially responsible manner and would not support it if we thought otherwise.
2. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 12:43AM
Ratings:-58+26
Considering the state of our nation’s economy with unemployment rates now 10.2%, there are still some in our community including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and Congressman Raul Grijalva, who have repeatedly stated that the good paying jobs, which would be offered by the Rosemont copper project as well as many additional jobs that would indirectly result from this activity, are neither needed nor wanted by our community. Instead of forcing our businesses to move their operations overseas, its time that our representatives in Washington support these efforts to put Arizonans back to work. It’s better than depending on meager handouts from the federal government, which only increase our national debt at the expense of future generations.
Large mining projects of this type are capable of pumping massive amounts of capital into the communities, where they operate. According to a recent independent study published by the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources and Arizona State University, the Rosemont project will result in an annual economic benefit to Pima and Santa Cruz counties of $745 million over the twenty year life of the mine and will also create of 2,000 new jobs for our community.
Now that is exactly the type of economic stimulus package that our community needs and when done in compliance with strict federal, state and local laws and regulations, it will not cost the American taxpayer a single dime.
3. Comment by Bill B. (4485)— November 11,2009 @ 3:26AM
Ratings:-27+56
went to the mine site, viewed its place, the community, the area, the city.. problems I see are basic.
* They are just digging here, not processing the ore to copper. - That should not be allowed, local workers should produce that.
* All the raw ore is going to be shipped to Mexico to be processed. - That should not be allowed to happen. Not only should be processed here and hire local workers if its going to open.
* They don't have a rail line! They plan on "Trucking" all the ore to Mexico! which means lots and lots of truckers hauling ore from this site through the city, or on the highway to the Douglas area.. or another rail head which makes huge volumes on traffic in this area. Not a solution... should not be allowed.
* All the ore goes to Japan and China. If the price is right FINE.. where's Arizona's share of the natural resource that is being removed. - The state is desperate for money right now. No pay, no dig.
If they can't get this items right - let'em dig their hole in China.
4. Comment by M. E. F. (AZSAGUARO)— November 11,2009 @ 4:12AM
Ratings:-29+58
You, Ms. Skaer, may be a "frequent visitor to Pima County over the past 20 years," but YOU are also from Washington where I presume you have NO water problems. AND you are a NON-BIASED advocate of the mining industry, so you will kindly take your nose out of our business and stick to the Pacific Northwest.
OH, and as far as "TRUSTING FEDERAL OFFICIALS," . . . . . . . HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! !
6. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 4:55AM
Ratings:-55+26
To Bill (#3)
You are wrong on many counts. First they will be processing the ore at the Rosemont site. This information is available in Rosemont's plan of operation, which is available to all to see on the internet. If they are shipping any thing out to the country, it will be the copper concentrates not the ore. As for the shipment of the concentrates to Mexico, I don't think that has been decided yet, as it would be impossible to write or sign any contracts not knowing exactly when production will begin at the site.
The primary reason why some domestic copper producers ship their concentrates overseas is insufficient smelter capacity in the United States. Over the last three decades, thirteen domestic copper smelters have been closed due to the high costs of maintaining these facilities in compliance with ever changing environmental regulations as well as the introduction of dump leach-solvent extraction-electrowinning technologies, which have eliminated the need for smelters to produce a marketable copper product. A side benefit to this reduction in smelter capacity has been a significant reduction of the amount of sulfur dioxide released into the atmosphere, reducing environmental damage resulting from acid rain.
There are currently only three operating copper smelters in the United States. These smelters are owned and operated by Phelps Dodge (now Freeport), Kennecott and Asarco, the nation’s three leading copper producers. With the closure of many of our nation’s domestic smelting facilities, these companies have gradually gotten out of the business of processing concentrates for copper producers, who have no smelting and refining facilities, and currently only have enough smelter capacity to treat the copper concentrates derived from their own mining operations. As a consequence of the business decisions by the major producers, copper operations like Quadra Mining’s Robinson project in Nevada or Augusta Resources’ proposed Rosemont copper project are forced to ship their copper concentrates to foreign smelters or go out of business. If smaller operators like Quadra Mining or Augusta Resource were able to find a domestic smelter to treat their copper concentrates, I am sure they would, because they would be able to significantly increase their profits by lowering their overall costs of production through the reduction of expensive concentrate shipping charges that range up to 30% of their total cost of production.
One must also consider the fact, that even some of the copper, which is smelted and refined at domestic facilities finds its way into the international marketplace. However, if you examine export/import data, you also will find that the United States imports much more unmanufactured copper from foreign countries like Chile, Canada, Peru and Mexico than it exports to foreign markets. In 2008, 760,000 short tons of unmanufactured copper consumed in this country was derived from foreign sources, including about 251,000 short tons from Canada. Like many other commodities, such as oil, the United States does not produce enough copper to meet its domestic needs, which only adds to our ever expanding trade deficits that have accelerated to unsustainable levels since 1997. The cumulative impact of these trade deficits over the last twelve years has had a devastating impact on our nation’s economy and it is this dependence on foreign goods, which has been one of the major causes of our nation’s current economic crisis. It is also why many of the jobs once held by Americans have been transferred overseas and why future domestic job growth will remain stagnant as our nation attempts to recover from this crisis. Furthermore, the federal government’s economic stimulus programs are incapable of producing sustainable economic growth and will only increase our national debt, another major cause of the current economic crisis. Any job opportunities created by this stimulus program will cease when the money runs out.
Sustainable economic growth can only be achieved, if we produce more of the raw materials and manufactured goods we require to maintain our comfortable lifestyle. Development of the Rosemont and Resolution copper projects would not only be good for the economic vitality of our community and state of Arizona, but it would also help our nation create the wealth it requires for sustainable economic growth.
7. Comment by wit w. (Wit)— November 11,2009 @ 5:25AM
Ratings:-29+56
Our children will hate us for this mine.
Will Rosemont fill in the hole ?
Will Rosemont remove the tailings ?
Will Rosemont reconstruct the mountaintops that make Tucson's Southeast skyline ?
Will Rosemont prevent dust from blowing onto Tucson ?
Will Rosemont prevent polluted water from draining down the Pontano/Rillito/Santa Cruz waterways ?
Will Rosemont somehow replace the water consumed at the mine and by power plants ?
Will Rosemont reimburse land owners for property value losses ?
Hard rock mining enjoys exemptions from many air and water pollution laws. Tucson is downstream and downwind from the proposed mine. On hazy days, the air pollution over Tucson is usually from mines West of Green Valley. It is not frequent because the dust usually blows away over the reservation. Tucson will be the destination of most Rosemont dust. Our laws hardly protect us from this pollution.
Noise from incessant blasting is not regulated.
The surface runoff hydrology and groundwater hydrology of the mine site have not been studied sufficiently to determine how water pollutants will run off and seep out of the mine. Our government is yet jumping the gun on even considering approval of the mine instead of requiring proper studies.
After the best ore is removed, they will no longer own the mine (mines simply go bankrupt), and the public will forever pick up the liability.
Not one water source available to Tucson has any surplus that the mine can tap. Every drop they take will be a loss to someone local. Rosemont offers to 'bring in' CAP water in exchange for groundwater they will take. The CAP delivers water 'on paper' that does not actually exist in the river as the river is over-allocated. So who's CAP water are they proposing to take away ?
9. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 11,2009 @ 5:47AM
Ratings:-45+27
Our children will hate YOU for trying to pin them down in degrading, soul crushing tourism jobs and associated low paying service sector employment.
"Incessant Blasting"? Even the biggest mine (Morenci) only puts off 2-3 blasts a day, usually no more than 5 days a week. I will assure you that I live closer to the pit than anyone in the Tucson area would live to Rosemont, and the blasting isn't even noticeable most of the time.
"Mines simply go bankrupt"? Where do you get these ideas? For example, Freeport McMoRan still owns Ajo, Bisbee, Miami, Christmas, etc. which have all been inactive for years.
As for the CAP nonsense, that big paper canal is pretty neat. You would think that all that water would soak right through it.
10. Comment by Richard S. (Harry Red Dog)— November 11,2009 @ 6:02AM
Ratings:-24+44
Trust Federal Officials
Hilarious. Didn't Reagan have something to say about that?
What a case of cognitive dissonance for those on the right who support Rosemont(all four of them)and distrust the federal government.
This fiasco will, hopefully, be killed or put off well beyond most of our lifetimes. The mine folks claim 400 jobs paying the princely sum of maybe $40k.
Not worth diddly squat compared with the rape of a beautiful mountain area...forever. Take a ride down to Green Valley and see what the mining inustry thinks is reclamation.
11. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 6:05AM
Ratings:-50+25
To Robert R (8)
Just because I or others who favor this project disagree with you in these forums does not mean we have been paid to do so.
I could have asked you the very same question about your affiliation with those groups who oppose the project, but have not done so out of respect I have for your opinion irregardless of what that opinion may be. All I can ask is that you show me the same respect as I have shown you.
12. Comment by Robert R. (gaijin)— November 11,2009 @ 6:15AM
Ratings:-22+38
#11 actually, I have not made up my mind as to for or aginst this project. I just get the feeling that you're a "sleeper" for the industry and are not being truthfull as to your affiliation. Have you ever worked for the mining industry. Do you now ? You skillfully avoided my question, didn't you.???
14. Comment by Mark S. (Mark S)— November 11,2009 @ 6:21AM
Ratings:-23+34
5 So from your point of view, we should forget about everything else for about 400 jobs that can quickly evaporate when the price of copper drops? D U M B
Look at San Manuel. All those good jobs, the mine and the smelter all evaporated when the price dropped.
15. Comment by Jefferson C. (commandermarcos)— November 11,2009 @ 6:27AM
Ratings:-39+25
Everybody, please identify what you do for a living and kindly refrain from commenting on anything you have any expertise in.
By the way, I have no association with Augusta or Rosemont or any mining company operating in Arizona. I'm a Tucson resident and I think Skaer's article is right on target.
16. Comment by wit w. (Wit)— November 11,2009 @ 6:27AM
Ratings:-23+38
Rosemont has a chance to open their mine only because humans have a poor imagination of time scales. Rosemont is trying to entice us into a short lived mining boom. The bust will be within some of our lifetimes, but the lasting destruction will be on a geological timescale (pun intended).
Tucson's Southeast skyline will be ugly for 100,000 years or more. Taxpayers will pay for $multimillion cleanups repeated many times over, as the site decays.
Tourism and recreation will suffer economic losses that seem small today, but will add up over time to much more than the value of the molybdenum and copper at Rosemont.
Air and water pollution will make 4000 or more generations a little less healthy, and their lifetimes will be a day or two shorter.
Desolation of Tucson due to depletion of our non-renewable water supply will occur much sooner, within our children's or some of our lifetimes.
Our children and theirs will hate us for this mine !
17. Comment by Jefferson C. (commandermarcos)— November 11,2009 @ 6:32AM
Ratings:-32+22
Mark S. San Manuel was around for more than 40 years and provided careers with benefits to many working class people people and continues to pay retirement benefits (including health care) to many retirees.
How many other non-government companies in Tucson can boast as much?
18. Comment by Jefferson C. (commandermarcos)— November 11,2009 @ 6:37AM
Ratings:-28+21
#16 - The Tucson skyline will not be affected. Rosemont's high wall is designed not to break the ridgecrest. Augusta will leave ore in the ground to avoid that.
So - Rosemont's effect on Tucson scenery will be less than the TV antennas on Mount Bigelow; not that those seem to affect the number of people who drive up the highway to Mt. Lemmon.
19. Comment by Richard S. (Harry Red Dog)— November 11,2009 @ 6:38AM
Ratings:-14+35
It is unfair to refer to Chris J as a shill for the mining interests without any evidence. He has frequently asserted he is an independent consultant to the mining industry and posts his voluminous tracts on line (to be read by maybe 500 people)because he feels strongly about the issue. There is absolutely no reason to question his word.
Now, if you want to hear from a mining industry shill the Star has accommodated us today with this load of whatever Ms. Skaer is peddling.
We all know how immune the Federal Agencies charged with protecting our federal lands are from bribes and intimidation, right? If Bush had another 4 years they'd be strip mining the Grand Canyon and drilling off the US Virgin Islands.
20. Comment by Nick W. (extex)— November 11,2009 @ 6:40AM
Ratings:-17+23
Lets ask all the layed off copper miners, because the demand is down, if another mine is needed.........
I could support the new mine IF the older mines in the area were at max production, hiring people and the demand was up. As far as the people saying that we don't have a vision of the future, do you or do you have a vision you'd like to see.
21. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)— November 11,2009 @ 6:46AM
Ratings:-16+35
Seems this is a typical article from someone with a title of:
Laura Skaer is the executive director of the Spokane, Wash.-based Northwest Mining Association, a nonprofit trade group that advocates for mining interests.
Bet she puts this same opinion article in every single city paper that is battling with a proposed mine.
I wouldn't trust anyone who says to trust Federal officials. Wonder how much Augusta paid her for this article?
Rosemont would only be around for 18 years unless, of course, you were to count the other 3 sites that they plan on mining, close to Rosemont, that they are trying to keep under the radar. Wonder how much water those would use?
22. Comment by kevin r. (papasnbeer)— November 11,2009 @ 6:47AM
Ratings:-33+19
i hope they bulid it so i can get a job their and continue to support my family people thats what its all about "family" support why should the green valley people care the mine is on the other side of the mountain they're not even going to see it and we need to work so they can continue to get their social security checks every month how they forget the last stat i saw it takes five of us workers for one retired persons social security check every month and also the environment will take care of it self thats mother nature for us thats what it does the mine will be like a grain a sand on a beach i agree with num 17 look how many people benefitted from magma n retired and put their kids through college and what have you the mine will be a great asset to local business and to the tucson economy and to all the people that are laid off right now and looking for jobs and also copper is more precious than gold we need for every aspect of our lives cars, computers, cellphones, homes , etc. go rosemont i support you all the way and about the wildlife they can run to the other mountains in the valley to play we have so many of them they aint going to hurt for food or water thet have the rincons they have the santa catalinas they have mount graham, they have all kinds of places to roam so get over green valley your enjoying your retirement let me work so i can enjoy mine too.
23. Comment by Richard S. (Harry Red Dog)— November 11,2009 @ 6:50AM
Ratings:-14+34
Commander Marcos
Funny how you ask everyone posting to refrain from speaking unless they have knowledge of the mining industry and its practices in 15 (*Everybody, please identify what you do for a living and kindly refrain from commenting on anything you have any expertise in.*)but don't tell us what you do.
Aside from the fact that your challenge is so far out of bounds (what does Commander Marcos do for a living?),as others have said in different forums, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Why not post some links to photos of successful reclamation projects by Rosemont? In Arizona.
Oh, I forgot. Rosemont has never operated a mine. My bad.
No real track record. Let's just trust them despite the horrific remnants of mining in clear view throughout Southern Arizona.
24. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 6:50AM
Ratings:-40+18
To Robert R (12)
Yes I am a consultant who works in the mining industry. If you have read any of these forums over the last two to three weeks you would known this, because it has been made perfectly clear.
However, I am not being paid by Augusta Resource Corporation, Rosemont Copper or anyone else to comment in these forums. It is being done at my own time and expense, because I recognize the seriousness of the issues involved and the necessity to make the pro-mining's views on these issues known to the public. Does that answer your question?
25. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 6:57AM
Ratings:-38+19
To Richard S (23)
Formed in 1834, Phelps Dodge was a prosperous mercantile firm, which did not get into the mining business until 1881. When they entered the mining business, they hired trained mining professionals like James Douglas to manage their mining operations. This business strategy was quite successful and allowed Phelps Dodge to grow into one of the world's largest mining companies.
Like Phelps Dodge, Augusta Resource has hired some of the top professionals in the mining business to manage their proposed Rosemont operation. Its ultimate success or failure will not be due to its inexperience in the mining business.
26. Comment by Richard S. (Harry Red Dog)— November 11,2009 @ 7:12AM
Ratings:-16+29
Chris 25
Like Phelps Dodge, Augusta Resource has hired some of the top professionals in the mining business to manage their proposed Rosemont operation. Its ultimate success or failure will not be due to its inexperience in the mining business.
Please post some links to photos of successful reclamation projects managed by these top professionals.
Copper mining has been a staple of the Arizona economy for over a century. For over a century the mining industry has left behind ruined poisoned land and ghost towns.
"Trust us" is asking a bit much given the history of copper mining in Arizona.
27. Comment by Arlene K. (AKellerman)— November 11,2009 @ 7:13AM
Ratings:-15+21
To: 21. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)
Thank you. I was just going to post that that the Opinion writer had an affiliation with NWMA. Here is the website if anyone wants to view it.
32. Comment by Arlene K. (AKellerman)— November 11,2009 @ 7:44AM
Ratings:-8+29
Trust federal official?
The same federal officials who said they could not use the no-action alternative which is legal alternative?
Now that the USDA has told the FS what it knew all along, the entire project should be halted until it has gone through the NEPA process as the agency has the ability to stop the project.
36. Comment by Arlene K. (AKellerman)— November 11,2009 @ 7:56AM
Ratings:-9+25
The same federal officials who during the initial round of scoping deliberately excluded the area that would be most directly and indirectly impacted by the proposed project?
37. Comment by Arlene K. (AKellerman)— November 11,2009 @ 8:03AM
Ratings:-9+26
The same federal officials who denied a hearing to the same area?
Different subject:
People in Green Valley could be affected through water issues (the water assumptions of this project are not based on traditional mining although the Company can convert to traditional water use if it chooses)
Green Valley could be impacted by truck traffic-concentrates and other vehicle use.
Green Valley's viewshed would be impacted by proposed transmission lines to the project.
Green Valley has the possibility of other mines on the west side of the Santa Ritas related to this project.
If any of the above were to occur they would be cumulative effects/impacts to their existing situation.
38. Comment by Bill B. (4485)— November 11,2009 @ 8:04AM
Ratings:-19+9
HORQUILLA - Thanks for your post, the information I'd gotten was from local land owners in the area, retired teachers, that I was working for. I've heard of a smelting method that attaches large volume oxygen truncks to the smelter, open the valve, raw expansion of the gas creating the heat to smelt the ocncentrate to copper and other metals. My understanding was that there was this type of opeation in San Manual. Quite clean air wise, the making of the concentrate producing large amounts of sufuric acid that had to be trucked out. Why don't they use this type of method to make the copper product here.
Why is there no rail to the mine planned? all the trucks would be dismal to the small highway and area.
I agree with your views that 'we don't make the product we import it' being a huge part of the problem this country faces right now with its national debt.. as well as the solution to current ecconomic problems. Seems I had some 'mis-information from the locals. It also sounds like your very close to the mine. I have no problem with that. Thanks for the post.
39. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 8:09AM
Ratings:-35+9
So far all I see here is alot of fear mongering, through the spread of false, misleading and contradictory information about the Rosemont Copper project.
For those of you who are truly interested in learning more about this important issue that will impact our community, I would suggest that you take a one of the tours that Rosemont Copper is giving the public. Then you will have the factual information from both sides of this important debate.
40. Comment by carol m. (carol123)— November 11,2009 @ 8:11AM
Ratings:-9+22
well I sure don't want foreign companies mining in my back yard!.Green Valley is a an eyesoar and so will the Scenic Santa Ritas be if they allow this mine to drill and blast in the area.
And I am pretty sure there have been studies of the destruction this mine will put into the enviroment of the area.Besides who would trust Gov. officials
they are nothing but LIAR'S!!!
42. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 8:25AM
Ratings:-30+10
If you think is hard to open a mine here, try building another smelter. Besides the cost of building a smelter just to handle the concentrates from Rosemont would be prohibitive. Although there are other alternatives to smelting the concentrates such has pressure oxidization and leaching of the concentrates to produce a marketable copper product at the minesite without smelting, the low total sulfide content of the ores combined with its high carbonate content render this method ineffective in this case.
Rosemont's only option is to sell the copper concentrates to a domestic smelter if they can find one who will take the concentrates or ship them to a foreign smelter for treatment. It should be noted that Rosemont will be one who is paying to have the copper concentrates shipped to a foreign smelter, which will increase their total production costs on the order of 25 to 30%. I'm sure they would perfer to ship it to one of the three remaining domestic copper smelters remaining in the U.S., if they could find one to take the concentrates, because in doing so it would significantly increase their profits from the operation.
43. Comment by Arlene K. (AKellerman)— November 11,2009 @ 8:27AM
Ratings:-11+23
The majority of the posts today concerning "facts" are yours and Jefferson C's. Are you saying they are "false, misleading and contradictory?" My posts have the truth in them, can you prove otherwise?
45. Comment by Rowan D. (RowD1)— November 11,2009 @ 8:30AM
Ratings:-10+27
re: For those of you who are truly interested in learning more about this important issue that will impact our community, I would suggest that you take a one of the tours that Rosemont Copper is giving the public.<<
Unless they can give a tour at a mine where they are actually doing everything they are promising to do here, I'll remain skeptical, thanks.
It all sounds good on paper, but the industry's track record is poor, and none have done a complete life cycle on a mine of this size and scope under the reclamation practices proposed.
There is also no indemnification against Rosemont's failure. Their promises are only as good as the company.
49. Comment by Tom C. (TomOV)— November 11,2009 @ 8:53AM
Ratings:-21+8
Arlene has asked about what posts were false or misleading, I have a few examples but there are more:
1. #36 - The very first public open house was held in Vail and there were a total of 9 meetings in the area. I am sorry but 30 miles is not far in a city like Tucson.
2. #32 - The Forest has never said they won't consider the No Action alternative, they have simply said that they cannot choose it. Sec. Vilsack's letter made that clear and his retraction did not change that.
3. #31 - Your idea of prosperity is not 18-25 years, this is an opinion only - in less time than that I could retire, put my kids through college, etc. The impacts are not just for that period but will love longer than that when you look at what my kids will contribute.
4. #32 - The entire project should be halted...the project employs hundreds of people in Tucson, Sonoita, Vail, etc. right now and I understand that there has been $100 million or more spent so far. What do you propose halting - the engineering, the PR work, the catering, the website work, the environmental studies? Or is it the grant at the University that you think should be given back so the students cannot finish their master's work?
5. #37 - The company could switch to "conventional mining if they wish" another misleading statement. Permits have requirements and if you cannot meet the requirements you cannot operate. It is that simple you cannot change your plans on a whim. Yes the could switch but only after they went through another EIS process so "if they wish" is very misleading.
6. #37 - GV will be impacted by traffic - why would anything be shipped to GV? At most, I-19 may be used for some shipping but there are no facilities in GV that will process the products or produce the raw materials so this is an out and out lie.
51. Comment by Nancy F. (nanfree)— November 11,2009 @ 9:05AM
Ratings:-9+26
Hopefully, the Federal Agents will not be as uninformed as you are. You state that “many opponents assume the mine will pollute the water, land and air, without any evidence to support those assumptions.” The why have I had to spend 5 years of my life to get mining slurry out of the public water in Green Valley, and the Tohono O’odam nation is facing the same problem, one site involves radioactive chemicals in groundwater.
Further, you have not informed yourself of the water situation. Water supply comes under state laws, not Federal. Hundreds of people are getting paid to study and figure out how Tucson region is going to have water for the next 100 years, even issuing 100-year water supply certificates that will be null and void if when these new high water users come in and deplete the certified water supply.
The situation is beyond compliance with laws. The Santa Rita section of the Coronado National Forest was set aside for urban recreation and to protect the area from the ravages of cattle grazing that had already destroyed the grasslands; therefore, the creation of the Experimental Range, so see if it was possible to recoup the vegetation.
Now we are expected to surrender the region to the ravages of copper mining. You may not know what the ravages are, but we do. Mining companies promise economic prosperity, but a drive through Arizona’s mining district, Morenci, Winkleman, Globe, Miami will squash that opinion. All these towns were mining has operated for 75 years look like a third world country. There is not a single sign of prosperity anywhere.
So take you lack of knowledge and go back to Washington state and enjoy all the clean water and air there!
53. Comment by Robert D. (rodahl)— November 11,2009 @ 9:21AM
Ratings:-6+16
I belong to the SCCA, "Spokane Clear Cut Association". Please allow the logging companies to clear the dark forests that surround your area letting in more sun so you won't have to visit here. And trust the Forest Service and BLM to make sure it's done tastefully.
54. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 9:26AM
Ratings:-19+11
#20, all of the mines in the Santa Cruz valley are at max production, except for Twin Buttes, which is owned by a non-mining company who don't have the ability to operate it... Rosemont hasn’t the right to move in on their property and begin operations.
I know lots of people native Arizonans who would love the opportunity to work at a new mine, even if the mine life is only 20 years. That's enough time to raise a family, and if one plans wisely, you would have a nice nest egg saved up.
Laura is right; let the professionals determine if they meet the current standards required by law. Isn’t that the job we’ve given them? Don't listen to the emotional arguments funded by other commercial interests who use 5x more water than Rosemont. And as far as attacking those who work as geological, mining or environmental consultants. Who would you rather trust; lawyers and community organizers, or professionals who have the education and experience to maintain gainful employment in an extremely complex and competitive industry (and the professionals who have been granted the responsibility of stewardship over our public lands and also those who operate the numerous agencies who govern environmental and safety standards. And regarding the environment; a pound of copper mined in Arizona has a much smaller burden on the environment than a pound mined in the 3rd world. You don’t like blood diamonds, but seem comfortable to accept blood copper – looks pretty inconsistent to me… Can you give me an example of a new American mine supported by any environmental group? The Rosemont group has bent over backwards to use every BMP endorsed by green groups, but nobody ever supports a company who plans to incorporate those practices…
55. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 9:26AM
Ratings:-18+6
#20, all of the mines in the Santa Cruz valley are at max production, except for Twin Buttes, which is owned by a non-mining company who don't have the ability to operate it... Rosemont hasn’t the right to move in on their property and begin operations.
I know lots of people native Arizonans who would love the opportunity to work at a new mine, even if the mine life is only 20 years. That's enough time to raise a family, and if one plans wisely, you would have a nice nest egg saved up.
Laura is right; let the professionals determine if they meet the current standards required by law. Isn’t that the job we’ve given them? Don't listen to the emotional arguments funded by other commercial interests who use 5x more water than Rosemont. And as far as attacking those who work as geological, mining or environmental consultants. Who would you rather trust; lawyers and community organizers, or professionals who have the education and experience to maintain gainful employment in an extremely complex and competitive industry (and the professionals who have been granted the responsibility of stewardship over our public lands and also those who operate the numerous agencies who govern environmental and safety standards. And regarding the environment; a pound of copper mined in Arizona has a much smaller burden on the environment than a pound mined in the 3rd world. You don’t like blood diamonds, but seem comfortable to accept blood copper – looks pretty inconsistent to me… Can you give me an example of a new American mine supported by any environmental group? The Rosemont group has bent over backwards to use every BMP endorsed by green groups, but nobody ever supports a company who plans to incorporate those practices…
56. Comment by Rachel P. (RachelP)— November 11,2009 @ 9:27AM
Ratings:-10+12
I would submit that comment #39 sounds very similar to the following opinion piece written by mining consultant David F. Briggs that was printed in the Starnet from 11-2-09. Just saying.
58. Comment by Jack P. (Jack truth be told)— November 11,2009 @ 9:33AM
Ratings:-11+19
My question is why does the ADS continually print these questionably "fair" opinions? What is does, is give Chris J. and Jefferson C. a sounding board to spew their promotion of the mine, with the intent of winning over less informed readers. There is no positive side from the ADS doing this. I wonder how many "paid subscriptions" Augusta buys from the ADS that would want them to support such unfairness. Let's have articles about the water, safety on Hwy 83, the forever remaining destruction of the land and all the other negatives. I wont tell you where I work and no, I am not a liberal, and now I dont live nearby the proposed mine.
59. Comment by Jack P. (Jack truth be told)— November 11,2009 @ 9:34AM
Ratings:-10+19
Should have been Chris J. (You know, the one who just happens to always be the first poster when an article about the mine is written. I wonder how he knows that another one is coming out.)
60. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 9:35AM
Ratings:-16+8
The fact is if most Americans thought 18-25 years out, this country wouldn't be in the mess it's in now.... Some AZ mines were opened with government grants, maybe if we wait 20 more years, our tax dollars will be used to open the Rosemont deposit - how you like that alternative?
And #45, it just isn't feasible to send you to mines which use the technology Rosemont proposes (such as dry staked tailings)... They're not required to use that method, but when they're operating, would you rather they use it?
62. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 9:43AM
Ratings:-20+12
Let's not forget who was in Green Valley first. If you think the mines were an eyesore, why did you move here? If mines are such bad neighbors, why has Green Valley and Sahuarita exploded in population? There are trillions more acres in America where a mine (or old mines) aren't visible (or feasible) - go move there and leave our traditional way of life alone... You don't like our mines, and we don't like your subdivisions and poor driving...
63. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 9:49AM
Ratings:-18+10
#57, one of the most vocal groups against the mine has ties with a commercial enterprise which uses 5x the water Rosemont will use. Isn't that a hypocritical position if not a conflict of interest?
When I have questions about the healthcare reform proposals, I ask doctors and nurses, not community activists or lawyers. If I didn't have a clue about mines, I'd visit mines and ask their professionals... Not people who throw out crazy accusations like toxic dust and populate every sentence they write with every negative adjective or adverb they can pull out of a thesaurus...
64. Comment by Greg M. (Locodinero45)— November 11,2009 @ 9:54AM
Ratings:-8+9
#63
I agree the residents of Tucson
Use More water because there is a million of them.
And they are against the mine!
Or were you talking about Green Valley again?
65. Comment by Greg M. (Locodinero45)— November 11,2009 @ 9:59AM
Ratings:-11+12
And we all know
A lot Pro-miner comments today will be from Northwest Mining Association Members
So disregard all out of State opinions.
Arizona does not need Washington telling us what to Do!
66. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 9:59AM
Ratings:-15+10
I'm talking about the Pecan orchards which use 30 Acre-feet of water per year, and have a much, much smaller impact on the local economy than Rosemont will. Small bang per gallon water uses (which is flood irrigated and only 20% is reused). Unlike Rosemont which will utilize they process water over and over again...
69. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 10:03AM
Ratings:-15+11
I can speak for me. I'm not a member of the NWMA. I'm a local, native copper miner who is amazed at the misinformation being thrown out by the anti-mining crowd. Today I'm amazed that they're the most anti-government "big-goverment" folks around...
72. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 10:09AM
Ratings:-20+9
The proposed Rosemont copper project is not just a local issue. It has become a part of much larger national issue, which deals with land use, water, our national economy, development of our nation's natural resources and how our nation is going to deal with the environmental and social challenges of the 21st century.
Successful resolution of these issues requires that we all work together to find solutions to these problems and make compromises on those issues, which we can not agree. Unless we can do this, American society will continue to decline and die the same way many other civilizations have during history's past.
Remember the quote by the famous philospher, George Santayana: "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it".
We can either work together to resolve our nation's problems or we remain divided and fail. There is no other option. Its your choice.
74. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 10:14AM
Ratings:-22+9
To Greg M (73)
I don't know where you been since the enactment of our nation's environmental laws in the 1960's and 1970's, but our domestic mining industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in cleaning up its existing and former operations over the years and continues to set aside large sums of money for future cleanup efforts. It is actually very rare for the taxpayer to be stuck with the cleanup bill.
75. Comment by Greg M. (Locodinero45)— November 11,2009 @ 10:18AM
Ratings:-10+16
Then why did Pima county have to threaten fines to clean up a site?
Then why did Pima county have to Fine Cal-Port 750,000 dollars?
I have been here Chris J
What about the spill at the other copper mine all this in last 3 years.
80. Comment by Rachel P. (RachelP)— November 11,2009 @ 10:29AM
Ratings:-9+14
Also, over the course of all these discussions, I have yet to see anyone answer the question of where future generations will get their "all-important copper." Since you claim it's such a necessary and valuable commodity for our convenient, modern lifestyle and creates all these fabulous high paying jobs and is such a significant and historical part of Arizona's economic base, what do you propose for our children, grand children and great grandchildren?
Oh yeah, I remember, your solution is to mine the other planets later.
81. Comment by ken p. (wellnow)— November 11,2009 @ 10:37AM
Ratings:-10+17
Well lets see...
Pro mine folks are up to their same tactics of denial and misleading the public. They say we need this mine and tout the jobs it will bring.
Then the facts start coming out and their rhetoric unwinds.
1) Water consumption is a main reason for NO mine.
2) Our Aquifers and riparian preserve water shed must be protected.
3) We in Arizona voted to pay for the Cap to stop the falling aquifer levels and the drying up of the local ecosystems. This mine did not pay a dime for the CAP installation and deserves none of its benefits.
4 We should not allow for further environmentally unfriendly development and exploitation of our dwindling water resources.
5) This mine is the wrong thing to even consider in our fragile local environment
As far as this writers rant about trusting the government to do what is right... I'm not a moron and I have watched my government in action for many many years and can honestly say that the government is corrupt and lacks any moral backbone collectively.
The only folks I trust less than governments are the multinational corporations who are destroying our planet as fast as they can for their profits.
Smelting in Mexican pollution factories should not be allowed. The only reason there is a lack of capacity to smelt ore here in the US is because Multinational corporations find it more desirable to pollute and kill workers and citizens in foreign countries to save a dime, than to pay what it costs to do things with environmentally sound processes here in the US or Canada.
Lastly,
I love my country but I fear my government!
Don't even go there with the rant about their paying to recharge CAP water and the pipeline to get it to Green Valley. What they pay per gallon for this CAP water is like 1/100,000,000th of what the actual cost per gallon is to get it to where they will pipe it to Green Valley from the CAP aqueduct.
83. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 11:13AM
Ratings:-21+9
To Rachel P (80)
Don't even go the argument that the anti-mining folks are trying to save it for future generations. If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Many deposits, that could not be mined during the early 1900's are profitable to mine today, due to changes in the metals prices, advances in technology, advances in mining practices and reclamation methods, and our better scientific understanding of their complex geological setting. There will occurrences available for future generations to mine.
Almost all of our nation’s current operating copper mines have been production for more than 50 years with some having been production for more than 100 years. As production continues over time, the ore grades (copper content) decrease, requiring operations to increase the production capacity just to produce the same amount of copper. At some point, it is not going to be economic to continue increasing capacity just to maintain current levels of copper production. That is known as the "Law of Diminishing Returns". Furthermore, just meeting current levels of copper production is not going to meet our nation’s current projected future demand for the metal. At some point it is no longer going to be economic to mine at these existing mine sites. Considering the long lead time it takes to place a large mining operation in production (5 to 10 years) before the first pound of copper is even produced, it is imperative the responsible development of new copper projects like Rosemont or Resolution be permitted to proceed in order to assure an interrupted supply of copper is available to our nation's consumers.
84. Comment by DAVID S. (4FNL4Z)— November 11,2009 @ 11:14AM
Ratings:-8+19
A total whitewash from a paid employee of the mining industry. She knows that Washington is mostly corporate occupied territory, so of course she says "trust federal officials" . It's the federal officials on an individual level that can't be trusted. A great many of them are former mining industry employees. I believe that our system of government is the best on Earth, but it's been corrupted by the infiltration of Big Business.
85. Comment by JOHN C. (johnbc)— November 11,2009 @ 11:27AM
Ratings:-7+13
Let me preface this by saying that "I couldn't be more on the left until someone falls off the edge of the bench".
Isn't that an oxymoron "Trust the Federal government". These people (Rosemont) don't care about us. They're in it for the money. Just look at what they're going through to get it. This would be a good time for the government to lead the way in "Green", not allow it, and listen to the people for a big change, not the money mongers. However Trust - no way.
87. Comment by tom c. (tjcliff)— November 11,2009 @ 11:28AM
Ratings:-17+8
Tourism and recreation will suffer? You actually think people will choose not to visit Tucson because Rosemont operates a mine here? HA...thats crazy. This mine will create around 2050 jobs for Rosemont and in services provided to the mine. each of those men and women with families means helping thousands. OPEN this mine
88. Comment by ken p. (wellnow)— November 11,2009 @ 11:29AM
Ratings:-8+12
I hope we eventually can make mining so unprofitable that we make reclamation of all raw materials through recycling becomes more viable and the norm rather than the a rarity!
There is plenty of metals out there we just need to reclaim them and reuse them!
So stop with the rants about we need more copper and start talking about how to reclaim these materials in our disposable society!
This movie Download that explains where we are going on our current path.
You can download The Story of Stuff in its entirety from this site. Simply right click the link bellow and save the target as to your computer (50 MB).
[url] http://www.sosvids.com/StoryOfStuff.mov[/url]
91. Comment by Rachel P. (RachelP)— November 11,2009 @ 11:39AM
Ratings:-6+17
"Trust federal officials to make right decision on Rosemont mine"
I hope that the pro-Rosemont people will still feel this way when the Forest Service determines that it is NOT appropriate to give Augusta Resources the right to turn America's National Forest land into a toxic waste dump!
92. Comment by Greg M. (Locodinero45)— November 11,2009 @ 11:42AM
Ratings:-6+15
Northwest Mining Association is committed protecting employees only!
No were does it discuss protecting the public! NWMA HEALTH AND SAFETY STATEMENT
NWMA HEALTH AND SAFETY STATEMENT THE NORTHWEST MINING ASSOCIATION (NWMA) IS COMMITTED TO AN INJURY FREE WORKPLACE FOR ALL EMPLOYEES:
“The NWMA sincerely believes that all injuries are preventable.”
Northwest Mining Association recognizes that each member company addresses the health and safety of its employees in different ways, and each member company is committed to an injury free workplace so that everyone can go home safe and healthy after each day’s work. The NWMA’s Health & Safety Committee has requested company members to share their health and safety standards on the NWMA’s website for everyone interested in improving their health and safety culture.
The members of the NWMA Health and Safety Committee feel that posting company health and safety standards on the NWMA website will allow for the sharing of best practices, leading to minimizing health and safety incidents in the mining industry.
Best practices are ways to better achieve health and safety results by eliminating hazards or controlling risks. They offer examples of procedures for others who are trying to control similar risks and achieve better results.
If you are a company interested in having your health and safety standards posted on the NWMA website to share your company’s best practices please contact
94. Comment by Linda M. (Happy Days)— November 11,2009 @ 12:01PM
Ratings:-6+14
#56 Rachel in the Star article that you give the link for David F. Briggs email address is given as geomineinfo@aol.com
In a Star Blog Rosemont Has A Fan In Toronto Chris J. Horquilla's email address is geoconsultant@aol.com
Another commenter pointed to this so I checked it out.
David Briggs has done consulting work for Rosemont. He has a consulting business called Geomineinfo and has a web site. However checking with the Arizona State Registrar Of Contractors, I found no listing for David F. Briggs or his consulting business Geomineinfo.
On his Geomineinfo web site David says his data was used to design the proposed plant and facilities at Rosemont.
96. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 12:09PM
Ratings:-13+7
#88 "I hope we eventually can make mining so unprofitable that we make reclamation of all raw materials through recycling becomes more viable and the norm rather than the a rarity!"
Wow, just wow... You clearly out of touch with reality and how the world works. That's just nuts. Our current lifestyle would be impossible. Just as a comparison to something people understand, the cost of products would be on an equivalent basis $50 or $100's per gallon gas. And people scream about $3 or $4/gallon gas...
Even with people stealing all that copper a few years ago, we were only recycling small percentages of the copper we need. I'm not against recycling, but it will never come close to what we consume. Most of it gets tied up in long term structures like houses and cars. If there was plenty of metals which you can recycle for pennies rather than by mining them, people would be doing it (like aluminum is cheaper to recycle than to mine new).
So you're saying that Laura is biased, but that website with the video isn't? We are in business to make copper, and envirionmentalists are in business to stop our capitalist system. But make no mistake - we are BOTH in business...
99. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 12:18PM
Ratings:-19+6
Neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party are the cause of the economic crisis that now confronts our nation. Both parties are equally responsible for the crisis in which we now find ourselves. They have told and continue to assure the citizens of this nation that we can have it all without regard to who is actually going pay for these excesses when the bills finally become due.
This problem has been festering for three to four decades and only now has become so serious that policies once used to temporarily resolve it are no longer effective in dealing with it. These policies have only been designed to treat the symptoms of our problems, but do not effectively deal with the underlying causes of our nation's serious economic crisis.
The real cause of America's economic crisis is our inability with live within our means. These problems are of our own making. Real solutions to our nation's current economic crisis will require substantial changes in how America conducts it’s business at home and abroad. There are no quick, painless solutions to these problems. Any sustainable solution to our economic problems must substantially reduce our nation’s huge trade deficit. That would result in the injection of hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy, which would otherwise be diverted overseas. In order to accomplish this task, we need to restore the wealth producing sectors of our economy, which will allow our nation to once again create the wealth it requires for sustainable economic growth. Until our representatives in Washington make a concerted effort to restore the wealth producing sectors of our national economy, the problems that currently plague our nation’s economy will only worsen.
The citizens of Arizona have an excellent opportunity to help play an important role in restoring our nation's economy through their support of Arizona's mining industry and new projects like Rosemont and Resolution.
100. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 12:19PM
Ratings:-14+5
#92
Don't confuse safety and health of employees to public safety. Mines are safer and cleaner than most public places. I can show you permanent safety hazards in Vail that would shut down a mining area until it's fixed (but somehow what is dangerous in a mine is safe for the public). And as far as chemicals, there are more toxic hazards under the sink at your house, than at all the offices, lunchrooms, meeting rooms at a mine property...
Here's a link to follow:
http://www.globalreporting.org/Home
101. Comment by Thomas C. (edward)— November 11,2009 @ 12:19PM
Ratings:-6+14
96. Comment by Mark B. (minador) — November 11,2009 @
""Even with people stealing all that copper a few years ago, we were only recycling small percentages of the copper we need. I'm not against recycling, but it will never come close to what we consume. Most of it gets tied up in long term structures like houses and cars. If there was plenty of metals which you can recycle for pennies rather than by mining them, people would be doing it (like aluminum is cheaper to recycle than to mine new).""
102. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 12:22PM
Ratings:-17+5
If you want to really understand the relationship between America's economy, its political system and its use of military power, I suggest that every American take the time to watch the following video of a Bill Moyers interview with historian, Andrew Bacevich.
Here is the link to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl1CXVymxfk
Now, this is a six-part video and it will take about an hour of your time, but I think it will be worth the effort.
And no the video does not deal with copper. However it deals with oil, where many of the same issues we are now discussing also apply.
103. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 12:27PM
Ratings:-20+7
To Thomas C (101)
The profits generated by our domestic mining operations are distributed to the stockholders of the mining companies, irregardless of where the company's headquarters is located. And many of these investors, include Americans.
Furthermore, profits generated by these mining operations are only a small fraction of the total cash flow generated by these facilities. Most of this cash flow is spent here in America to operate our domestic mines, where it benefits local communities and our nation.
One must consider the fact, whether copper concentrates are smelted and refined at domestic facilities or shipped abroad to foreign facilities, some of it will always find its way into the international marketplace. That is how the free market system works and we certainly can’t change that just because a few individuals would want America to make an exception in this case. However, if you examine export/import data, you will find that the United States imports considerably more unmanufactured copper from foreign countries like Chile, Canada, Peru and Mexico than it exports to foreign markets. In 2008, 760,000 short tons of unmanufactured copper consumed in this country was derived from foreign sources, including 251,000 short tons of unmanufactured copper from Canada.
Like many other commodities, such as oil, the United States does not produce enough copper to meet its domestic needs, which adds to our ever expanding trade deficits that have accelerated to unsustainable levels since 1997. How does forcing domestic industries to relocate overseas reduce our dependence on foreign goods or benefit America? The cumulative impact of these trade deficits over the last decade has transferred and continues to transfer much our nation’s wealth overseas. Just think of the positive economic impact this money would have had on our economy had it not been sent overseas to pay for goods that American workers could have produced here. The prospects of a bright economic future for our nation are bleak, unless we are able to reverse this trend and produce more of the raw materials and manufactured goods we require to maintain our comfortable lifestyle.
104. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 12:36PM
Ratings:-18+6
To Thomas C (101)
So what if the copper is going to China. If we force all of the mines to close and send the economic benefits and jobs they provide to our nation overseas, the only thing we will be sending overseas is our existing wealth (i.e., our dollars) just to purchase the things we require to maintain our affluent lifestyle and that we are not willing or able to provide for ourselves. How does that help our nation's economy or help resolve the severe economic crisis we now find ourselves. It only makes our nation more dependent on foreign sources for the raw materials and manufactured goods we require to maintain our comfortable lifestyle. Your solution is simply unsustainable and will result in the decline of our civilization like so many civilizations of history's past.
"""Strongpoint recently purchased a bunch of Web site names nearly identical to www.scenicsantaritas.org. And just coincidentally, of course, the latter site is owned by Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, a group fighting the very mine Rowley hopes to hype."""
This is the type of tactics these people use. Yet they say: trust us ????
107. Comment by tom c. (tjcliff)— November 11,2009 @ 12:42PM
Ratings:-13+5
How many jobs would your recycling center create? Would they last 20+ years. Would they help as many people provide a paycheck for their families. People posting in favor of Rosemont are part of the local PR firm? maybe just fellow Arizona miners who know others in need of a job.
108. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 12:44PM
Ratings:-20+9
Many individuals opposing the Rosemont project claim that they support the mining industry, but oppose this particular project. If this project was located somewhere else, they may well support it, but there will be others who live in that area, who will be against it. The bottom line is virtually everywhere the natural resource industry proposes developing an operation in this country, there is opposition like we are now experiencing in our community.
If we can't produce the natural resources our society requires to sustain our comfortable lifestyle, where to we mine these raw materials? Is it morally right to demand that third world countries produce the raw materials that we could otherwise mine here in the U.S., if it were not for this local opposition that inevitably occurs when a project like Rosemont Copper is proposed? Aren’t you asking the citizens of some third world country to bear the consequences of the same environmental damage, which you so adamantly claim would occur here, if the Rosemont Copper project is permitted to proceed? If so, why should the citizens of some third world country be forced to deal with the negative consequences of mining activity that supplies the raw materials we use to maintain our comfortable lifestyle, when we are unwilling to deal with the same issues ourselves?
109. Comment by Joe M. (joemac)— November 11,2009 @ 1:01PM
Ratings:-14+9
I started in the metal mining business as an unskilled laborer back in 1978 and remain in it today. I’ve worked hard for several different companies extracting different minerals, been promoted, earned a good living, and paid my taxes. I’ve been involved in several start-up projects, most notably an open pit gold mine in a National Forest that is still in operation and which has reclaimed the land it has disturbed to the satisfaction of the Forest Service and BLM.
The mining industry is one of the most heavily regulated and inspected industries in the US. It continues to pay for the sins of its past. The environmental regulations that were formulated in the 1970’s and made increasingly restrictive were deserved as the industry was plagued with numerous irresponsible operators. Today, the industry has consolidated and only the strong, long term players remain. Their in-house environmental and regulatory compliance departments are generally superior to their governmental counterparts in experience, expertise and education. Any new mining or mine expansion proposal in the US that has addressed and met all the regulatory and financial challenges, including the financial environmental bonding, has been well and truly vetted. When the writer of this editorial says “trust the government”, I’m going to assume she means trust the government to ensure that even the smallest details of this proposed operation have been vetted and that penalties for non-compliance have been adequately addressed. You can rest well knowing the government will be breathing down the company’s neck every minute of every day just looking for an excuse to put them out of business. And if any company can successfully emerge from the application process with its will to conduct business intact, I’m thinking that company is a solid citizen and equipped to handle the vagaries of the metal markets.
Nonetheless, state and federal legislation will grow ever more burdensome and convoluted and it will eventually accomplish exactly what set to do: namely drive all mining out of this country and in the process, denying future generations of guys like me the chance to earn an honest living. Mining in the US in more than a heritage: it is a necessity. And we do it here better than anywhere else, despite the competitive disadvantage the regulations impose. And for that segment of the population that refuses to let facts get in the way of its opinions and would prefer to have its copper mined overseas in countries that have no EPA or MSHA: Everything we have today is either mined or farmed. Everything.
110. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 1:11PM
Ratings:-6+16
R 106
Chris said
That's old news that has been around for at least two years.
Yes Chris it is, it took almost two years to make the PR firms release the names. They released them when it was pointed out they were breaking Federal laws by sitting on the website names .
112. Comment by Bob A. (Brewmeister)— November 11,2009 @ 1:15PM
Ratings:-7+16
I see she conveniently left out the destruction of US83 and the traffic increase of up to 88 semi trucks per day down the two lane highway. This is so typical of the copper mine industry hacks.
115. Comment by Thomas C. (edward)— November 11,2009 @ 1:21PM
Ratings:-6+17
106. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) — November 11,2009 @ 12:39PM
Ratings: -3 +0
Thomas C (105) posted
"""Strongpoint recently purchased a bunch of Web site names nearly identical to www.scenicsantaritas.org And just coincidentally, of course, the latter site is owned by Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, a group fighting the very mine Rowley hopes to hype."""
106. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) — November 11,2009 @ : Replied:
""That's old news that has been around for at least two years.""
My current response:
The age of the article is irrelevant. The facts are relevant It shows that Rosemont was playing dirty pool even then.
116. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 1:22PM
Ratings:-6+14
An example of the type of "study" used to justify the takeover of thousands of acres of National Forest is posted on the rosemontcopper.com website. It is their traffic management study that was performed by a "non'biased" firm. The study is in excess of 500 pages put about page 17 is the exam-les of the car pooling that the study is based on. The two scenerios are 100% car pooling and 75% car pooling. It is difficult for me to trust studies that are ebased on such false assumtions. Read for yourselves and determine for yourselves, just understand that most of the land we are discussing is National Forest, not private land.
117. Comment by Bob A. (Brewmeister)— November 11,2009 @ 1:24PM
Ratings:-7+16
Chris J. Horquilla: do you do anything else besides sit at the computer 24 hours a day and profess the wonderfulness of open pit mining? I notice your postings start at 00:01 hrs and go on until 23:59. Just curious.
118. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 1:29PM
Ratings:-6+17
I was re-reading the article by Ms Skaer and I think she left out a point. Her comment was "Trust federal officials to make right decision on Rosemont mine " What she didn't point out was every government official for three counties has came out against the proposed open pit copper mine on National Forest land. That includes "both" of our Federal representatives. So my question is, Why doesn't SHE trust our Government officials? Is it only CERTAIN officials we can trust, the ones she works and talks with with her pro-mining organization that Augusta is a member of?
119. Comment by George B. (sotired)— November 11,2009 @ 1:40PM
Ratings:-7+17
I guess we should all be greatful to Chris J.(Horquilla) and other hacks for donating their own time and efforts to put a shine on a disaster in the making. You think they would be in DC where the could be making big buck putting out c rap. Maybe this is just a way station and they are trying to build a reputation. Could be material for their portfolio.
121. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 1:49PM
Ratings:-17+7
#101
the USA is a net importer of copper, once on the open market you can't control where the copper goes, just know that we have to buy more than we make. Maybe someday we'll get in an equilibrium whereby the copper made here is purchased here, but right now, people buy when they need it from where it's available. They don't wait until they can buy it down the street...
The tax revenues are staying here, the wages are staying here. Should we stop buying Toyotas because the profits go to Japan (but many Americans are employed by Toyota)? How many American companies have branches located outside the States? A lot of them do - it's a reality. Your argument doesn't hold - we're dependant on foreign sources of copper...
122. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 1:54PM
Ratings:-17+6
If you want to try to open a recycling center and employ 400 people, you're free to do that (just don't do it in Pima County - you'll get shouted out).
But I'm going to use the current channels and methods of doing business (why reinvent the wheel?). We mine for a reason (because recycling cannot come anywhere close to suppling what is needed).
123. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 1:54PM
Ratings:-6+13
R 121
Mark B said
The tax revenues are staying here,
An example of this great "tax revenue " is the taxes they now pay. For a 160 acre parcel they are paying about 40 dollars a year. A question to you the average citizen of Pima County, is that the type of tax rate that you pay ? It's much less than what I pay. I think I can do without this windfall "tax revenue" and save the 12,000 acres of un-patented mining claims Augusta has made on National Forest that they pay NO tax revenue to Pima County on.
124. Comment by Samuel A. (lonerngr)— November 11,2009 @ 1:56PM
Ratings:-15+8
First, let me say that I have worked (as a Geologist) at Rosemont on the geologic evaluation team; however, am no longer employed there. I would like to see the mine come into fruition because I genuinely feel it would be of great long-term benefit to all of us, locally and nationally.
But, let’s address the argument that mines are only temporary, and that mining operations and connected jobs, etc., are lost when the price goes down. Is this not true of many segments in our free-market based system, with our ever-fluctuating business cycles (growth vs. recession)? Economically speaking, nothing is forever; mines can close but open back up again when the price is right; and for the past century Arizona mines have provided continuous livelihoods, health benefits and retirement benefits for many mining families, and provided stimulus to the economy. Incidentally, Rosemont technologies will make it one of the most efficient operations around, capable of sustaining itself at much-lower copper prices than at the current $3/ lb.
And speaking of “temporary economies”, what about the recent short-lived housing “boom” which brought a brief spell of prosperity to the area, its ultimate collapse putting multitudes of construction workers, carpenters, builders, real estate agents, etc. onto the unemployment roles? It will take awhile, but the housing market will recover. And what of the high-tech boom of the 90’s, the so-called “new economy”, which collapsed in recession, resulting in one of the biggest stock market crashes in history? The “new economy’” high-tech sector is here to stay, but will continue to have its ups and downs. And the old industrial economy will continue to grind along, as usual.
And metals-mining is no different; susceptible to economic cycles and fluctuating world demand for industrial commodities. But make no mistake about it, the Rosemont copper mine will ultimately become reality; simply because it is there, is a tremendous resource asset, and the economy will demand it.
125. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 1:57PM
Ratings:-7+13
Call your Pima County Supervissor, ask them "How much is Augusta "Rosemont" paying in taxes and then decide for yourself about these advantages of taxes.
126. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 2:03PM
Ratings:-22+4
To Robert H (118)
You know, the opinions of political leaders really don't count for much. It is the opinions of the intelligent, hard working citizens of our community that will ultimately make the difference on this issue.
Public opinion on the proposed Rosemont project has always been in favor of this environmentally responsible project irregardless of what the opposition says and will only increase as our citizens gain a better understanding of the issues involved. When they come to realize how our political leaders in Washington have been promising to bring good jobs to Arizona, but behind closed doors in Washington have been supporting legislation that will actually result in the closure of much of our nation's remaining industrial base and transfer of good paying jobs overseas, they will overwhelmingly support this project.
Like leafs in the wind, our political leaders will eventually change their opinion about the Rosemont project or will be voted out office. It is as simple as that.
127. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 2:04PM
Ratings:-15+7
#117
no need for personal insults, where is your argument against the project?
Chris has the right to speak out - we don't attack you guys for writing a lot of posts. Parties on both sides write a lot of thoughts when time is available (though we don't tend to give out private email addresses...).
130. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 2:12PM
Ratings:-19+6
Rosemont is a great place for a mine. For starters there is a world class copper deposit located at the site, which is situated in a historical mining district that has more than 100 years of mining history. It is also located in a rural area, which is close a major metropolitan center, where there is quite of bit of infrastructure available to support the operation and a large workforce of trained workers, who have experience working at open pit mining operations. Furthermore, there are also a significant number of consulting and service companies, which provide services to the mining industry located in the Tucson area.
131. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 2:14PM
Ratings:-19+8
There are some in this community who look at area’s mines as just see an ugly hole in the ground. When I look at the area’s mines, I see the wealth, opportunity and prosperity these mining operations bring to our community. Mining is one of the basic industries, which forms the foundation of modern society. Without these basic industries, modern society would simply not exist.
132. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 2:15PM
Ratings:-7+15
There was a news report about a week ago that approx 750 jobs would be lost in the Sierra Vista area dealing with the unmanned aircraft program. Just a brief story that I didn't even catch in the newspaper, guess they don't have the pro-unmanned aircraft people posting comments to support them. My point is, "We are going to lose more in the way of wages from that one program that is proposed for RosemontAugusta with their 400 jobs and closing off a National Forest." Things need to be put in perspective.
133. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 2:17PM
Ratings:-8+15
R 131
I see the ugly hole when the hole may drain the Cienega Hydrogeological water basin with a 2600 foot deep hole that is approx a mile across. Seems to me the definition of "a hole"
134. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 2:20PM
Ratings:-19+9
To Robert H (132)
According to a recent independent study published by the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources and Arizona State University, the Rosemont project will result in an annual economic benefit to Pima and Santa Cruz counties of $745 million. 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.
Now that is exactly the type of economic stimulus package that our community needs and when done in compliance with strict federal, state and local laws and regulations, it will not cost the American taxpayer a single dime.
135. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 11,2009 @ 2:23PM
Ratings:-21+7
Just more misleading and false propaganda by the environmental and anti-mining folks. I'm not surprised by their response, which is an attempt to use the public's poor understanding of modern mining operations and its fear of the unknown to spread their false and misleading statements about a noble and honorable profession without which modern society would not exist.
136. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 2:24PM
Ratings:-15+6
123
Do you seriously think they only pay land taxes? You should look at what the local mines pay in taxes, and payrolls they generate (those people also pay taxes and pump activity into the local economy).
Mining in Az brings new wealth out of the ground - it makes the pie bigger. The state government estimates that AZ copper mining alone puts ~$5 billion into the AZ economy (not to mention what cement, sand & gravel and other sectors of mining contribute).
138. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 2:31PM
Ratings:-17+7
You meant that to belittle him as if he doesn't have a life and only stays on his computer, get real.
That's not a legitimate argument "do you do anything else besides sit at the computer" "just curious".
Don't try to spin it. He posts a lot because he has spent many years in the mining industry and wants to clear up the confused facts he sees getting thrown out.
"Chris J. Horquilla: do you do anything else besides sit at the computer 24 hours a day and profess the wonderfulness of open pit mining? I notice your postings start at 00:01 hrs and go on until 23:59. Just curious."
Looks like you're trying to make him seem like a loser to me...
139. Comment by Linda M. (Happy Days)— November 11,2009 @ 2:36PM
Ratings:-6+15
More to add to my #94 comment. Augusta Resources/Rosemont has no employees (according to Google Finance an Reuters), just corporate heads, approximately 15 they started with 4. Augusta contracts all work to be done out to other companies, consultants etc..
Now according to Arizona State Laws, if you get paid $500 or more for your service you have to register with the Arizona State Registrar of Contractors. I found several mining consultants and geologists registered, I did not find David F. Briggs or Geomineinfo listed.
I'm not sure about requirements for a business license, I did check and found no business license for David F. Briggs or Geomineinfo.
140. Comment by Robin L. (NIMBY)— November 11,2009 @ 2:38PM
Ratings:-7+17
I'm surprised that Ms. Skaer expressed surprise at the huge amount of opposition to the Rosemont Mine since she lives in Washington State where in 2004 the voters approved an initiative to ban the use of cyanide for new gold mining operations because of the history of disastrous pollution from gold mines. In 1998 Montana’s voter’s passed a similar initiative. It’s also surprising that she believes that existing laws will ensure that the Rosemont mine won’t pollute our environment and that the Forest Service “will make the right decision”. As executive director of the Northwest Mining Association, Ms. Skaer should know that the Mining Law of 1872 currently overrides most other environmental laws, including the ability of the Forest Service to flat out deny the Rosemont Mine based on potential environmental impacts (but that may change soon!). In Arizona, mines are exempt from most of our groundwater protection laws, and do not have perform an analysis of the impacts from their groundwater pumping. Lastly, her assertion that today’s mines protect the environment ignores the fact that according to a 2006 report, over 73% of all western open pit mines violated water quality standards when the NEPA process determined that they would not cause any water pollution. See the report by Maest and Kuipers at http://www.scenicsantaritas.org/water.asp
141. Comment by Bob A. (Brewmeister)— November 11,2009 @ 2:38PM
Ratings:-8+16
Don't put words in anybody elses mouth, pal. Nobody called Horquilla a loser, he has been posting 24/7 and repeating the same mantra for nearly a year. I am not trying to spin anything, just pointing out the mine hacks are redundant, and we don't feel like having the Coronado used as a Copper Company dump. Chill, por favor.
143. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 2:44PM
Ratings:-14+10
I did't see any argument against the mine, just a personal comment addressed to him.
We're not mine hacks - and talk about redundancy? Everyone knows that some of the copper will go to China and that Augusta is a Canadian company. Tell us more about the toxic dust - I'd like to get a sample to send to the EPA...
146. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 2:56PM
Ratings:-13+5
Ok, good cause if you're going to throw that out, you need to make sure to follow up (and not just smear him and make people question his integrity because of a few quick checks).
I'd just hire a legitimate firm to do a thorough background check.
JALREZ VALLEY, Afghanistan — In this Taliban stronghold in the mountains south of Kabul, the U.S. Army is providing the security that will enable China to exploit one of the world's largest unexploited deposits of copper, earn tens of billions of dollars and feed its voracious appetite for raw materials.
149. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— November 11,2009 @ 3:12PM
Ratings:-15+7
7. Comment by wit w. (Wit)
Every point you attempted to make is a lie.
14. Comment by Mark S. (Mark S)
Not when the price dropped, when the ore ran out.
81. Comment by ken p. (wellnow)
If water is the main reason for not allowing mining we had better shut down the pecan groves south of Tucson. They use uyp to 34,000 acre feet of water per year while the mine will only use 5,000 acre feet. Stop all home building as approx. every 15,000 homes uses the same amount of water Rosmont proposes to use, 5,000 acre feet.
153. Comment by Greg M. (Locodinero45)— November 11,2009 @ 3:25PM
Ratings:-6+16
So if our army is protecting a copper deposit for China is this not another mine clean up operation paid with our tax dollars?
Why do we supply all the copper needs and only get cheap products in return?
154. Comment by Greg M. (Locodinero45)— November 11,2009 @ 3:28PM
Ratings:-8+12
When I look at the products we buy I see
will fail or need to be replaced in 2 years or less.
And don't want the failing product to be labeled AZ Copper!
156. Comment by Randy S. (skinnyman)— November 11,2009 @ 3:30PM
Ratings:-8+18
[This comment has been removed]
157. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— November 11,2009 @ 4:11PM
Ratings:-16+6
156. Comment by Randy S. (skinnyman)
So we should pay more attention to the elitist Environmental NGO shills spouting falsehoods about the mine on here? Shirly, you jest!
The AZ Legislature and Governor is even putting their support behind this mine and looking for ways to bring other new mineral exploration and more mining to our state.
158. Comment by ken p. (wellnow)— November 11,2009 @ 4:16PM
Ratings:-7+12
#102 CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) I have already seen that video and I agree 100% there are many issues to be faced and resolved. Not the least of wich is the decline of the American Empire! Tough times are coming and we are unprepared for what awaits us.
We who live in this arid desert region need not look too far to see the consequences of over allocation of limited water resources and improper industrial effluent treatment.
For me a good source for information has been PBS.org
BLUE GOLD "World Water Wars"
Watch the trailer for this PBS documentary on water wars!
BLUE GOLD "World Water Wars"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikb4WG8UJRw
It is available on Netflix for viewing and it is highly recommended.
We are in trouble with water in the desert southwest and can not afford future developments that would further strain our finite and dwindling water resources.
We are fighting developers, mines etc out of the need to preserve our way of life. Unsustainable development by any industry needs to end.
As for recycling of metals our problem isn't the lack of materials to recycle it is the lack of industry recycling it or developing technology for cost effective and environmentally sound ways to separate and process those recyclables. Industry needs to produce more recycle friendly products etc etc...
160. Comment by Rowan D. (RowD1)— November 11,2009 @ 4:23PM
Ratings:-6+11
re: which is an attempt to use the public's poor understanding of modern mining operations and its fear of the unknown<<
I think the public has a pretty good understanding of modern mining operations:
*It involves a really, really big hole in the ground;
*The stuff that comes out of the ground occupies more than its original volume once removed needing significantly more area than the original hole;
*It involves oceanloads of water;
*It involves lots and lots and lots of big trucks hauling things from there to somewhere else;
*Whatever cleanup is to be done involves a lot of money;
*All other use of the land the mine occupies and the land where the waste goes are unusable for other purposes during and for at least some time after mining has ceased. Which is a long time;
*Mining companies come and go;
Are you with me so far? So, we need to decide whether an environmentally significant multi-use recreation area with a dwindling supply of water and a falling water table connected to the supply chain by a narrow road that also serves as the only access to nearby communities and recreation areas is the best place for a company who has no way of indemnifying or guaranteeing future resources and who has not yet successfully demonstrated the mining practices it plans on developing is the best place for said mine.
Was there something else about modern mining you think we need to know? That about covers it for me.
161. Comment by Samuel A. (lonerngr)— November 11,2009 @ 4:25PM
Ratings:-12+7
Re: #140 (Robin L)
You are incorrect in saying that the 1872 Mining Law “overrides” most environmental laws. Proposed mining operations must undergo the same scrutiny under NEPA as other proposed activities on public lands. And most responsible and credible companies today will meet their obligation to make things “right” within the requirements of the law.
However, the Mining Laws do give one the right to prospect, stake claims and mine hard rock minerals on public mineral lands. So, even though the miner is required to meet the requirements of NEPA, he cannot be denied the legal and constitutional right to develop a valuable mine under the 1872 Mining Laws. Whether you like it or not, these are the facts, plain and simple. This is why the USFS is balking at a “No Action” option, being pushed by the local opposition, which would be technically illegal, fought vigorously by industry and most likely thrown out of the courts. At best, this is a delaying tactic by opposing special interests, environmental groups and NIMBYS.
Efforts to close all the Santa Ritas to future mining, or to radically alter the 1872 Mining Law, are crazy and dead-end bound; Representatives Grijalva and Giffords are deceiving hopeful NIMBYS into thinking this strategy will work; Congress won’t buy it. Study the history, look up the laws and regulations, and enlighten yourselves.
162. Comment by Bree H. (Bree H)— November 11,2009 @ 4:33PM
Ratings:-6+13
Gosh, I sure hope there are some anti-mine editorials coming or I would be confirmed in my concern that the Star is in bed with Rosemont.
What I've seen are 2 recent pro-mine editorials (Brigss and this woman), but no others. Apologies if I've missed them, but if not, hope the Star is planning the rebuttal editorials...
163. Comment by Joe M. (joemac)— November 11,2009 @ 4:34PM
Ratings:-13+7
re: #158
The mines and the miners staked out the southwest and towns sprang up near the bigger strikes. That was long before AZ became a magnet for the snow birds and nut jobs who have stressed the scarce available resources. Reminds me of the people who move out to the country next to a pig farm and start complaining about the smell.
164. Comment by Bree H. (Bree H)— November 11,2009 @ 4:35PM
Ratings:-7+11
Can we enact some kind of cap-and-trade policy on Chris J? Honestly, it's one thing to be an active participant in forums, it's another to basically sabotage them by endless rhetoric and intolerance of opposing viewpoints.
165. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— November 11,2009 @ 4:39PM
Ratings:-13+6
140. Comment by Robin L. (NIMBY) WRONG! More misinformation. The 1976 Federal Land Policy Managment Act (FLPMA) changed all provisions of the 1872 mining law that pertain to the environmental protections as well as ownership rights. In addtion the FLPMA mandated that a study be performed on all federal lands to determine their ecological, environmental and socio-economic values. This was mostly complete by 1996 when the first major changes to the mining regs were made. The rules were published and became final in January, 2001 including the Surface Management and Reclamation Reg, 3809.
166. Comment by ken p. (wellnow)— November 11,2009 @ 4:42PM
Ratings:-6+12
149. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)
"amount of water Rosemont proposes to use, 5,000 acre feet."
Are you kidding me!
The mine proposed in their own documentation that they plan to use 1,600,000 acre feet over 10 years. That is 160,000 acre feet per year. Now they state the mine will operate 20 years will that be 3,200,000 acre feet of water?
That is a small amount of water when using copper mining standards. There is quite a bit of doubt that this as yet untested in Arizona technique can really get by on such a small amount of water.
Put this in prospective...That is twice the entire contents or Roosevelt lake
Quote/
Roosevelt Lake is the oldest of the six reservoirs constructed and operated by the Salt River Project. It also has the largest storage capacity of the SRP lakes with the ability to store 1,653,043 acre feet (2.03900 km³) of water at full capacity.
167. Comment by Bob A. (Brewmeister)— November 11,2009 @ 4:49PM
Ratings:-6+15
Ken, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. He will never lie about the magnitude of the water use or environmental or traffic safety problems. And this gal from Washington State has such a conflict of interest that it is funny they even put this drivel in the paper today.
168. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— November 11,2009 @ 4:50PM
Ratings:-12+5
166. Comment by ken p. (wellnow)
Your information is absolutly wrong. I have reviewed the Plan Of Operation. 5,000 acre feet per year.
As far as Roosevelt, that lake is drained twice-over every year for farms, SRP and power generation. Get your facts straight!
169. Comment by Mark S. (Mark S)— November 11,2009 @ 4:52PM
Ratings:-6+9
17 isn't there still plenty of ore in the ground there?
It WAS indeed good while it lasted, but they closed shop (and cleaned up pretty nicely) when the price of copper fell. If they'd kept that open, we wouldn't need to be thinking about a mine in the Santa Ritas yet.
171. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— November 11,2009 @ 4:58PM
Ratings:-11+7
169. Comment by Mark S. (Mark S)
The ore that could be profitably mined was removed. BHP accessed a very veed deposit but found that the ground was too heavy to hold and backed out. That was over 2 miled deep. Even at todays prices or even double the ore was too costly to mine, if it even could be. Heavy ground at that depth is deadly not inclusing rock spalls and floor bucking. A spall is spontanious rock explosions and bucking is the floor suddenly moving upwards from inched to feet. Both can kill miners or break bones.
175. Comment by ken p. (wellnow)— November 11,2009 @ 5:16PM
Ratings:-5+11
#169. Comment by Mark S. (Mark S)
It WAS indeed good while it lasted, but they closed shop (and cleaned up pretty nicely)
We will see if it cleaned up pretty nicely since I know miners who worked there and tell me about buried unmarked waste containers with oil and other such contaminants in them along with broken equipment buried in side shafts. These are likely come back to haunt us now that it is flooded.
166. Comment by ken p. (wellnow)
Your information is absolutly wrong. I have reviewed the Plan Of Operation. 5,000 acre feet per year.
I think it is time for you to show proof of your claims as I was at their meeting and they were awfully proud of the 1,600,000 acre feet over 10 yeas. They really played up the dry tailing process and how little water that 1,600,000 acre feet was when compared to conventional copper mining techniques.
I also read it on line in their press releases. They don't talk about the water use much anymore since that is one of the communities biggest concerns.
176. Comment by ken p. (wellnow)— November 11,2009 @ 5:31PM
Ratings:-5+9
If you are talking about 5,000 acre feet per month I think even that is a low WAG on your part. They document their proposed usage in their well pumping and pipeline documentation. So where is your documentation coming from?
177. Comment by Nancy F. (nanfree)— November 11,2009 @ 6:08PM
Ratings:-5+13
I have written it several times before--looks like I will have to keep writing it because you mining guys have short memories, too much breathing of toxic dust and chemicals I suppose.
There have been two new mines in Arizona that environmentalist did not oppose in the last five years! Safford and Mineral King--which was actually a re-open and big expansion. Both are in isolated areas, not in a National Forest that was created for urban recreation. So now you have the facts, so quit whining about environmentalists and face the facts, mining and people do not go together.
178. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 11,2009 @ 6:17PM
Ratings:-13+4
[This comment has been removed]
179. Comment by Rachel P. (RachelP)— November 11,2009 @ 6:18PM
Ratings:-7+13
To all the anti-Rosemont allies:
We all have our deep-seated knowledge that and why the proposed Rosemont mine is wrong on so many levels. We must remember that most of the pro-mine commenters here stand to gain financially from this mine. We must also realize that they are running scared and that we must not stop voicing our opinions and our concerns.
This story is just another opinion piece that they hoped would work in their favor, but their arguments are so weak that it is all turning against them.
Keep up the good work and KEEP SPEAKING YOUR MIND.
The Rosemont controversy may not go away for a very long time, but I feel strongly that as long as we keep speaking our minds (and there are many more of us than there are of them), that this mine will NOT happen.
180. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 11,2009 @ 6:23PM
Ratings:-13+5
The Safford mine WAS opposed, hence why the permitting process took so long. Oddly enough, though, the people that actually LIVE in Safford weren't unanimously opposed. Much of Safford's economy has historically gotten a huge boost by Morenci. They understood that the mine means jobs and revenue filtered into the local economy.
182. Comment by Rachel P. (RachelP)— November 11,2009 @ 6:32PM
Ratings:-5+12
#180, Chris P., well I would say that the Rosemont mine is nearly unanimously opposed by BOTH the people who live in the area and many others. So they can waste as much time and money as they want on the permitting process, but I'm convinced it will NOT be approved in this case.
183. Comment by Joe j. (We Be Tucson)— November 11,2009 @ 6:34PM
Ratings:-5+12
Hey August B. I've been following the possible strike by Frys and Safeway. I notice you don't support Unions.
So much for all those good paying mining jobs being promised by Rosemont a foreign owned mining operation.
#210 Comment by August B. (EcoRealist) November 10,2009
Last paragraph, The union is screwing you and attempting to hold up the people of Arizona. I will be sure to shop at Frys and Safeway and smile at the picketers as I do.
The above was in yesterdays Star comments on the strike, and there are several more comments by August B. in today's articles on the strike.
184. Comment by Arlene K. (AKellerman)— November 11,2009 @ 6:39PM
Ratings:-5+12
To: Tom C # 45
1. Wrong. There were three initial public open houses, none of which were in Vail. After Rep. Giffords stepped in, there was one public open house. That is the only open house held in the 430 square mile boundaries of the Vail School District. No hearing was held in this area.
2. "Consider all alternatives" means all alternatives will be considered. Very simple for those who understand.
3. I prefer to care about more than short term gain. Historically, 18-25 years is extremely short term. I care about more than my children graduating from HS. I care about other people’s children and my grandchildren and great-grandchildren down the line.
4. Yes. The law should not be subjugated to suit the needs of a company who does not have a mining permit. Please show me the facts that show "hundreds" of people are employed by the company now? (if it is 101, please do not bother)
5. Obviously you have never heard ADWR speak. It can be done, that is a fact, regardless of the path.
185. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 11,2009 @ 6:44PM
Ratings:-17+6
I'm convinced Rosemont WILL be permitted to proceed, if not now and by Augusta, by somebody someday.
I disagree that Rosemont is nearly unanimously opposed. It just so happens that those you associate with also oppose the mine. If you allowed yourself to step outside your comfort zone, you just might find that more people are for the mine than you can possibly imagine at this moment.
Like it or not, Arizona has historically been a mining state. Why? Because there are huge mineral deposits found here. Some people's families have been mining in Arizona for literally several generations. Those that were unfortunately laid off in February, as well as other currently unemployed workers from around the state, are probably foaming at the mouth at the opportunity to make a decent living. But I guess you don't know and/or associate with those people, so all you see are those opposed. I can understand where you'd get the idea that it's unanimous, but really, it isn't.
Furthermore, I do understand the concerns that many share in these forums. I just feel, from personal experience, that much if not most of the concerns are not based in reality. That is my OPINION. I'm sure you probably think I'm not based in reality, but I live next to the largest copper mine in North America, so I can see for myself the plentiful water, and utter lack of devastation to the environment.
186. Comment by Arlene K. (AKellerman)— November 11,2009 @ 6:53PM
Ratings:-5+11
To: Mark B. # 97 "So where is a link to any mine supported by environmenatal groups? There aren't any..."
Do you ever attend any meetings on this subject? I personally have heard two entities (one of which you bash constantly in here) and a separate one speak for real mining companies in the area
189. Comment by Arlene K. (AKellerman)— November 11,2009 @ 7:03PM
Ratings:-5+13
To: CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) #126 "You know, the opinions of political leaders really don't count for much. It is the opinions of the intelligent, hard working citizens of our community that will ultimately make the difference on this issue."
Are you saying that our local political leaders are dumb and lazy? I thought political leaders responded to their constituents. Darn those dumb and lazy political leaders for listening and responding.
190. Comment by Rachel P. (RachelP)— November 11,2009 @ 7:06PM
Ratings:-6+12
Chris P.,
I believe that you have noted in your comments to previous stories that you are a mother, and I'm very sure you love your kids and want the very best for them now and in their futures.
I share your sympathy for miners (and their families) who have been laid off. But how can you honestly believe that this is a sustainable industry or lifestyle? You state that "some people's families have been in mining in Arizona for literally several generations." This is true I'm sure, but what do you want for you children and grandchildren's futures? Do you really believe that Rosemont or other similar mining ventures will continue to be available to them 20 to 100 years out so they can participate in this wonderful industry that you espouse?
I encourage you to give serious consideration to what kind of country your decendents will live in and what kind of resources will be available to them if we extract all our natural resources here and now, and in so doing, destroy the natural beauty and intrinsic wealth that makes this such an amazing place to live.
191. Comment by Arlene K. (AKellerman)— November 11,2009 @ 7:08PM
Ratings:-5+12
To: Mark B. #138
I do not believe anyone said Chris J. was a loser. You are the one who said the other poster was trying to imply that. I did not get that from the post. I have wondered about the vast amount of time he spends here. Also, are you saying that people who spend a lot of time on the computer are losers? I don't believe that. What if they are a home based business and can do both? What if they have a physical disability and this is one way they can help the community.
193. Comment by Greg M. (Locodinero45)— November 11,2009 @ 7:17PM
Ratings:-5+13
If there was a shovel at Rosemont
and for every Pro-Rosmont Comment the
shovel could remove a shovel full of dirt.
But at the same time it has to shovel a scoop back in with every Anti-Rosemont Comment how big of a mountain have they built today with Anti-Rosemont Comments?
194. Comment by Arlene K. (AKellerman)— November 11,2009 @ 7:25PM
Ratings:-6+11
To: Rachel P #190
I have many wonderful childhood memories of visting my aunt and uncle who lived in San Manuel. I had other family members who worked their as well but commuted from Tucson. That came to end for everyone when BHP closed the place down. As I grew older I remember ex workers from San Manuel who were retrained, some at government expense for new jobs outside of the mining field.
The benefits of using the Forest for this proposed Rosemont venture are outweighed by the negative impacts.
196. Comment by Thomas C. (edward)— November 11,2009 @ 7:30PM
Ratings:-5+13
180. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler) — November 11,2009 @ 6:23PM
Ratings: -7 +0
""The Safford mine WAS opposed, hence why the permitting process took so long. Oddly enough, though, the people that actually LIVE in Safford weren't unanimously opposed. Much of Safford's economy has historically gotten a huge boost by Morenci. They understood that the mine means jobs and revenue filtered into the local economy.""
198. Comment by Arlene K. (AKellerman)— November 11,2009 @ 7:35PM
Ratings:-5+11
To: Chris P. # 178.
I think it was last week but I am not exactly sure when I saw it that "David Briggs" said he called the Sheriff because he felt threatened when someone posted information about him. He also had a prior editorial in the paper. Should the person you just posted about if it is the same person call the Sheriff on you? I am not implying in any way shape or form that I would advocate calling the Sheriff. I am just saying this is what was said last week or so.
200. Comment by Greg M. (Locodinero45)— November 11,2009 @ 7:43PM
Ratings:-5+11
Ok Laura Skaer can you explain this to us.
Give up what we own until mine is finished?
“It will cost miners more to do business, but we don't mind doing so because this will help local communities and local economies.* We have no objections to paying a fair price for land and turning over our roads, buildings, and infrastructure to make lasting improvements to local communities after mining operations have ceased.”*
201. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 11,2009 @ 7:49PM
Ratings:-12+6
Sustainable? Phelps Dodge began operations in Morenci 127 years ago. Smaller companies worked the area for close to twenty years prior to that. I'd say that's sustainable. Rosemont PROJECTS a 20 year mine life span. You're not taking into consideration further exploration of all the patented and unpatented mining claims that are sure to yield more orebodies or an extension of the current known orebody. Trust me, it will be sustainable.
You have to mine where the minerals are. Why don't you people get that? How will it help our economy in any way to purchase all our copper from TRUE third world countries where the environment truly WILL be devastated since they are not even remotely regulated to the extent that companies in America are? Recycling is all well and good, and I'm all for it. However, copper wiring used for any electrical purposes must be of the purest, highest quality. Therefore, primarily NEW copper must be used for those purposes, and it has to come from somewhere. Why not here, where Tucson would benefit economically?
Please don't try to lay a guilt trip on me about my childrens' future. That is none of your concern, but since you brought it up, I will encourage them to do whatever they want to do, whether that's to go to college and work in the tourist industry/service sector, or in the information technologies, or even if they decide to become miners. It's up to them.
I have given serious consideration to what kind of country my children will be inheriting, and judging by the environmental/green movement that has recently run rampant, if things don't drastically change, we WILL be a third world country. This country needs to be independent of other countries for natural resources or our economy will collapse completely. Does "trade deficit" ring any bells? It's not like we can sustain this country economically based solely on the service or information sectors. We are blessed in this country to have an enormous amount of natural resources, and an enormous land mass. If people like you would allow this country to be self-sustaining, we could all have a future for our children to be proud of.
My husband can trace Phelps Dodge miners in his family back to the turn of the century. These are generations of men (and women) who have seen more "intrinsic wealth" and "natural beauty" than you can possibly imagine. I assure you, that there is an entire world of beauty inside the Earth, that only those who choose to embrace it will ever see.
203. Comment by Rachel P. (RachelP)— November 11,2009 @ 8:00PM
Ratings:-7+10
#201, "I assure you, that there is an entire world of beauty inside the Earth, that only those who choose to embrace it will ever see."
Well, since I prefer to keep my feet firmly grounded on the Earth's surface, I guess I never will get to embrace that world of beauty you're talking about.
205. Comment by Rachel P. (RachelP)— November 11,2009 @ 8:12PM
Ratings:-7+10
#201, "We are blessed in this country to have an enormous amount of natural resources, and an enormous land mass. If people like you would allow this country to be self-sustaining, we could all have a future for our children to be proud of."
I agree with your premise of our country's need for increased self-sustainability, but the issue is that not all of our country's natural resources are renewable.
206. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 11,2009 @ 8:33PM
Ratings:-12+6
#170, I didn't think your video you posted looked right, so I conferred with someone who sees blasts every day, and was told that what you posted IS an irregular blast. The dust columns going into the sky, especially on the "zipper row" indicate that the holes were inadequately stemmed, and the energy in the explosives was wasted.
Rachel, if you haven't been in a mine, you really have no opinion. I am sorry, but you should have some frame of reference before making wild accusations. Morenci, ASARCO's Mission Complex and others offer very good tours.
You are correct in stating that not all natural resources are renewable. Not all can be recycled either, contrary to what some folks would have us believe. Copper is a necessity to modern life, whether you like it or not. As my husband challenged many on this board before he was banned (ostensibly for having strong opinions), tell me how you could go ONE day without copper, recycled or otherwise.
208. Comment by Rachel P. (RachelP)— November 11,2009 @ 8:57PM
Ratings:-6+11
Thanks for the suggestion Crispy, but I have no desire to "be in a mine." But then again, I'm not crazy about caves, boats or airplanes either - guess it's just me.
I'm not sure what "wild accusations" you're referring to.
Thank you for agreeing with my point, "not all natural resources are renewable." That is my point. I will agree that in our modern world most people in our country and many people on the plant use copper products everyday.
However, digging up our copper reserves, thus permanently depleting our natural resources and polluting our environment, then shipping the copper off to China (thereby taking away from the self-sustainability you refer to) in order to produce cheap products (that are designed to fail and be frequently replaced so someone can make a buck), then are shipped back to the United States to be sold at Wal-mart is no way to maintain a sustainable quality of life in my opinion.
210. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 11,2009 @ 9:16PM
Ratings:-10+7
I am referring to the wild accusations that you and others throw about regarding mines and miners. Do I really need to review them for you? The usual accusations have all shown up in this thread, with a few modified ones as well. None hold any merit whatsoever.
One orebody will not deplete all reserves, no matter what you say. Your throwing in the requisite "polluting our environment" line sums up that you have no real argument, you are only going along with the NIMBY mantra. Not all copper will get shipped to China, but a large amount does. It isn't given away, it is sold. The profits return to not only the company shareholders, but the employees, contractors, the local businesses where the money is spent, taxes paid, and so forth. Money is not a closed loop, it flows freely in a functional economy.
Seeing as "Green" groups have done so much damage to American manufacturing and business in general, you may wish to rethink your positions before espousing your beliefs in a self-sustaining economy.
People who consider virtually everything to be "pollution" are very much to blame for our horribly imbalanced economic situation, as I have pointed out before. If you align with the "Green" groups, then you are a proponent of the shoddily made imported goods that you claim to be against.
If you support a return to common sense environmental regulations and an eradication of the frivolous lawsuits endlessly filed by environmental groups, then you can rightfully claim to support American manufacturing.
213. Comment by Joe j. (We Be Tucson)— November 11,2009 @ 9:28PM
Ratings:-5+10
Rachel and Greg click on the link in your 56 comment - then click on the comments and read pro Rosemont comments 401 and 414. These comments were directed at Robert mntcats, if any one should call the Sheriffs Department and make a report, it should be Robert.
214. Comment by Matt D. (primematt)— November 11,2009 @ 9:29PM
Ratings:-10+8
hummm I just read on yahoo.com that Arizona was one of 10 states that were facing a major financial crisis......but hey lets prevent a bunch of jobs and several sources of revenue
215. Comment by Greg M. (Locodinero45)— November 11,2009 @ 9:30PM
Ratings:-6+11
Speaking of Caves
Rosemont owns private property and if they want to dig a cave or hole in it fine but why do they want a bailout and but their Cave tailings on public property?
216. Comment by Greg M. (Locodinero45)— November 11,2009 @ 9:40PM
Ratings:-6+11
but or put,I already live in a cave
with a small pc powered by some coal they screwed the reservation out of, waiting for my small copper allotment from China
lol don't mind me i am copper deprived if you ask some of the people on here...
219. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 11,2009 @ 9:51PM
Ratings:-11+5
#216, you might want to see exactly what the Hopi and Navajo tribal leadership thinks of the environmentalists sticking their noses into the reservation coal business. Both tribes have told the environmental groups that they have worn out their welcome on the reservations.
221. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 9:54PM
Ratings:-6+10
What Joe is making reference to is when Thomas (Copperhead)made reference to the possibility that someone may take a few pot shots at me. I did find that to be a very foolish statement. Didn't frighten me but then again I realize to what extremes mining companies and their supporters will go to furthur their goals. I saw that in 1983 when I was arrested in Morenci. So a slanted threat is just that, foolish.
222. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 11,2009 @ 9:55PM
Ratings:-10+6
[This comment has been removed]
223. Comment by Greg M. (Locodinero45)— November 11,2009 @ 9:57PM
Ratings:-5+7
218
He had a Clint Eastwood way about him,
He would say
"Do you feel lucky Anti-Rosemont punk?"
when you ban someone their reputation grows larger then life!
224. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 9:57PM
Ratings:-5+10
Most of the Augusta supporters know where I live and I'm not difficult to find. It does worry me when I go to the National Forest and have Augusta's private security force follow me around through the forest roads though.
225. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 11,2009 @ 10:11PM
Ratings:-10+5
You are right, Joe. You never threatened ME. But you do know what I'm talking about, don't you?
Robert, I believe that my explanation of Thomas C's post clearly stated "EXTREME ENVIRONMENTALISTS", did it not?
So, Robert, were you "arrested" by Phelps Dodge Security or someone going to work? Supposing that you actually were arrested by the Greenlee County Sheriff's Office or DPS, it would have been for BREAKING THE LAW, just like anyone else. The same as someone who would run a red light, breaking the law is breaking the law.
226. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 10:33PM
Ratings:-5+10
R 225
Nice side of the mouth personal attack zoe, that just cost what little respect I had for you. I was arrested with seven other people when the mine reopened after the ten day shutdown. We lost to PD and your family benifited from the Union fights that went on in previous years, I stayed out and honored the strike and the workers who had been there for generations. I have really made a decision to not report anyone but you are getting rather "personal"....OH yes PD SECURITY was hiding behind the fence, they left it up to the National Guard and the thousand highway patrol, Greenlee County sheriffs and Pinal County backup. Oh yes, don't forget the undercover group who had the supercomputer at the UofAz.
228. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 10:40PM
Ratings:-5+10
As far as breaking the law Zoe, tell that to the parents of the 16 year old that was shot by the highway patrol officers in Safford while they were "detaining"him for questioning. They "accidentally shot him in the neck" while they said he was NOT resisting arrest. I think their were three of them with a 16 yr old. Az had to pay for that one.
229. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 10:42PM
Ratings:-5+10
Zoe, you have as much as stated I "invented my persona" about Morenci. I lived on Agavae and there are still people there who remember the name, would you like to learn ore about what happens when the Arizona Government works in tandem with a copper company in Arizona.????
230. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 10:46PM
Ratings:-5+10
When I left Morenci, my wife accidentally let it slip to my mother that I had been arrested with felony charges in Morenci. Upon arrival at our new town I called my mother and spoke with her for an hour trying to explain there was nothing to worry about. My mother died that night in her sleep Zoe so cut the cr*p about how the Nasty strikers were beating up on poor poor PD , a lot of us paid a lot to stand our ground then and what makes you think we will back off now?
231. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 11,2009 @ 10:51PM
Ratings:-12+3
There was no "personal attack", Robert. And, as a side note, this is the third time in as many weeks you've removed your "respect" for me.
You have failed consistently to give any details as to your involvement in the strike, relying only on "I was there", which bears little credibility in the world. Forgive me for saying this, but many of your stories seem to have been taken verbatim from "Copper Crucible" and "Holding the Line". At any rate, if you were there along with seven others AFTER the ten-day "cooling off" period, you were there illegally. Trespassing is trespassing. Go to work or get off the property, simple concept.
My family has only benefited from the strike in that the unions are gone forever. We take care of our children and ourselves rather than pay union dues.
232. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 10:54PM
Ratings:-5+11
I listened to this in 1983 when the people were being bussed in by the comapnay to break the strike.
excuses
We need the jobs
I'm feeding my familay
Someone has to do it
You do't kno how tough it is out there
They have the right to have no union, its a right to work state.
I've got your job sucker!!!
We listened to it all..
Sounds familiar to what I hear now.
233. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 10:56PM
Ratings:-5+10
I was arrested in my living room. Make your own excuses, you benefited from what the unions fought for with decades worth of work. If ytou want to disregard that so be it. Just never attack me again by an insinuation that I am lying about 1983.
234. Comment by Richard S. (Ricardo Small)— November 11,2009 @ 10:57PM
Ratings:-6+12
Laura Skaer you don't have an appreciation of anything except money.
Trust who? Government officials? Nonsense.
Damages from a big open pit copper mine cannot be mitigated. The negative impact the mine would have on nearby privately owned real estate values cannot be reversed. The wildlife populations endemic to the area that would be lost cannot be replaced.
The Rosemont Mine is a terrible idea that cannot be allowed to go forward.
236. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 11,2009 @ 11:00PM
Ratings:-5+10
As a last comment, NONE of the eight ever got to trial. ALL the charges were trumped up and false. IT was to make it look as if there was a disturbance that never happened, somewhat similar to what was tried in Patagonia at one of the Rosemont/Augusta Forest Service Meetings.
237. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 11,2009 @ 11:06PM
Ratings:-12+4
You responded before I finished typing my last post, for this I apologize.
After 26 years, isn't it time to admit that you lost?
The strikers beat up on themselves through sheer greed. Nobody else was the aggressor, the innocent men and women trying to feed their families were the victims. The strikers were their own worst enemy.
I'll take your story at face value, as there is nothing to plausibly confirm nor deny any of it.
239. Comment by Joe j. (We Be Tucson)— November 11,2009 @ 11:16PM
Ratings:-5+10
Hey Robert, know this you are appreciated and admired. Also be careful, the remarks made the other night started after you posted your video. They worried me then and more so now.
243. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 11:37PM
Ratings:-10+5
#186 Arlene,
So what new mine are those folks supporting?? Can you give examples where the Sierra Club, Earth First, Center for Bio Diversity, and others have supported a new mining proposal?
Representative Giffords says she's for responsible mining, but co-sponsoring legislation to close all public lands in Pima County to new mining is anti-mining. Considering new mines on a case-by-case basis could not be considered anti-mining. So just because she's ok with Freeport expanding now and then doesn't mean she's pro-mining. She's being politically savvy.
244. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 11,2009 @ 11:41PM
Ratings:-10+3
[This comment has been removed]
245. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 11,2009 @ 11:50PM
Ratings:-10+4
191 Arlene
That comment had no bearing on the story or the mining project. It was a jab plain and simple. Post #117 was meant as an insult.
Such a post was akin to making fun of posters because of poor grammer or spelling. Even well educated people make mistakes when typing fast, so it's pretty cheap to call people on it.
I have seen other Rosemont stories where people on your side of the issue write post after post. There's nothing wrong with that - we all can't be on here all the time.
And regarding the question someone asked if I've been to the meetings; yes I've been to many them. I've actually been at the meetings when Asarco owned the property and tried to open the mine (and people dressed as birds were interrupting the meetings). I'm very familiar with the issue and I grew up in the area.
246. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 12,2009 @ 12:57AM
Ratings:-11+5
Nice posts #210.
As long as we import more copper than we export, we are dependent on foreign copper.
So what if I, an Arizonan, bought all of Rosemont's copper, then sold it all to China. But then changed my mind and decided that I needed that amount of copper and bought the same amount again (but from Africa) and used it here to make stuff? Did the USA not benefit from the copper? It's all indistinguishable "Cu" with the same properties and value. Now that's an unrealistic scenario, but when you look the real scale of the copper market, with thousands and thousands of copper buyers (and sellers), you can see that it's very difficult to control or forecast where each pound will go. But one thing is for certain, the USA will import about 40% of its copper consumption each year. And even more now that everybody wants a Prius (which uses a lot more copper than similar sized conventional cars).
I'm glad that somebody admitted that they weren't against mining per se, but that they just want it done someplace else. I hear that a lot, and I think it's the sentiment of most anti-Rosemont folks. So it's really not about the protecting the earth, it's about protecting your view (and our precious water!). They are two different things...
Do you not agree that there is a greater burden on the environment and mankind when minerals are mined outside the first world? Don't you want a cleaner economy? Don't you want to stop exporting the burden created by your lifestyle? If you want both, create a law that says that Americans can only consume 60% of copper currently demanded in 2008 (like your allies propose capping greenhouse gas emissions). And make a law freezing the amount of water that can be pumped. That's a good idea too, right? If you want to ban mining in every backyard (or any pristine, unique area) change the federal mining and environmental laws. Use the system our Forefathers created. Don't demand the government make an exception and ignore the laws and process in this case. Because if we set the precedent that they can ignore the laws, none of us, on any side of this issue, can be protected from the mob which can scream the loudest. We are adults and we have created the rules - if we don't like them, we need to cowboy up and change them
I really feel sorry for the regulators - they're between a rock and a hard place; The businesses who are following the law and who will sue if they are discriminated against, and the well-meaning opposition who will sue them if they allow the project to continue. Their only solace was that the "no action" case had no legal grounds, but that may be taken away by fiat...
247. Comment by ken p. (wellnow)— November 12,2009 @ 6:16AM
Ratings:-6+8
Lost your job yet?
Keep buying that china crap, hiring illegal’s to do your labor, using that self checkout lanes and crossing picket lines. You too will soon be one who is out of work or supporting your out of work 25 to 35 year old child!
I see programmers, accountants; engineers are being acquired for 1/3 or less the pay of US born professionals. In India you can become an engineer for less than $5000 and through H1Bs work in America for $35,000 a year or less plus a studio apartment to live in. Our corporations will save between $100,000 and $150,000 a year. Will it reduce the cost of the bridge or car? No it won't it will enrich the top 1% even more. Welcome to the real new Mexico where the rich get richer and the poor get um well who cares what the poor get say the corporations. They say let the social services pick up the tab for the working poor! They can get food stamps, wic, free emergency room services and free pre-natal care so why should we provide health benefits or high wages. Hell lets extend that health care for illegal’s since that saves us 30% more over what we pay Americans!
I hate unions and socialism but dam it there needs to be a way to check and balance the greed and theft perpetrated on the middle class while ensuring a minimum quality of life for the working poorest citizens!
There is a new term in corporate America and it is called KT (Knowledge Transfer) and it is quite simple and effective. Just take a trained qualified professional and put him in charge of a team of H1B professionals. Once they are up to speed invent a project to put your $200,000 plus a year professional on and let that project expire then you can lay him off because you have nothing new for him to work on and guess what you have 5 to 7 of his trained employees filling the positions at less than 1/5th the cost! We aren’t outsourcing any longer we are in sourcing. And soon we will have a new and better ability to compete globally. I even went to a seminar that teaches corporations how to not hire American professional applicants while still qualifying to hire H1B visa professionals!
Possibly we can out source the management at GM and generate more wealth for the upper 1% of America. After all those managers from India or China not only work for less they have valuable experience working with less! Wall Street can finally pull out all the stops as there will be much more liquidity to invest with! Think about it, the only thing we export now is investment instruments, treasury notes (our debt), garbage and recycling. With all the low paid Americans we can finally compete in this tough Global market! The American (corporate) dream finally realized!
Some of my rant is satire, but it is not too far from reality either!
248. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— November 12,2009 @ 11:50AM
Ratings:-11+5
175. Comment by ken p. (wellnow)
Buddy boy, the forst part of your post is borderline slander.
The second part on the water is just pain stupid. Here I will cut and paste from the POO right here.
2.8.3 Production Plan
The feasibility study and preliminary design for the Rosemont Project indicate that the water requirements
are approximately 5,000 af per year with a peak delivery volume of 5,000 gpm. The wellfield and pipeline
for the water supply system will be designed to accommodate both the peak delivery rate and the total
annual supply requirement. The wellfield will have excess capacity so that it can meet the 5,000 gpm
production requirement, while maintaining at least one production well in reserve.
Rosemont has acquired a 53-ac parcel along Santa Rita Road northwest of the Santa Rita Experimental Range.
249. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 12,2009 @ 12:27PM
Ratings:-4+10
Following is another quote by Laura Skaer concerning
Gale Norton, President-elect Bush's choice to head the Interior Department. Gale Norton once suggested that government recognize property owners' ``right to pollute'' and that they be compensated for losses when forced to protect the environment.
Laura Skaer's quote was;
``She will bring a balanced approach ... to multiple use management of federal public lands,'' said Laura Skaer, executive director of the Northwest Mining Association, a trade group based in Spokane, Wash
250. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 12,2009 @ 12:31PM
Ratings:-5+10
A mining reform measure passed the House 244-166 in 2007, but failed to make it out of a Senate committee. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., would have forced the hard-rock mining industry to pay royalties on minerals extracted from public lands and would have put new environmental controls on mining.
Robert Comer, regional solicitor for the Interior Department based in Denver, said there will be renewed interest in a 1999 legal opinion that gave the Interior Department the right to veto any mining proposal that causes substantial environmental harm
The opinion rendered by John Leshy, the Interior Department's top lawyer during the Clinton administration, was later abandoned by the Bush administration
Leshy, now a member of Obama's Interior Department transition team, based the opinion on his interpretation of a 1976 federal law that directed the Interior secretary to prevent "unnecessary or undue degradation" of the public lands from all activities, including hard-rock mining.
"It's an important standard that's been misapplied by the courts and the agencies, and there needs to be discipline in implementing the standard," Comer said.
Skaer said she thinks mining opponents will use the standard as a tool to stop mine projects over the next four years.
251. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 12,2009 @ 12:35PM
Ratings:-11+5
Good point, 1.6 million acre feet is on a completely different scale - it's greatly beyond the amount required by even a conventional mine. Ken has his facts mixed up somewhere.
If you use the approximately 5,000 af value as in the POO, Ken's amount would be used in 320 years, not 10 years.
252. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 12,2009 @ 12:41PM
Ratings:-4+11
If Skaer thinks we should have so much trust why does she say they are wrong when they go against the mining companies? Are they only to be trusted when they side with the mining companies. Following is information on a lawsuit filed:
Oct 23, 2009 ELKO, Nev. (AP) -- Conservationists and tribal leaders in Nevada have joined a lawsuit challenging two U.S. mining regulations that they say provide illegal subsidies to the mining industry and result in serious damage to the environment.
The suit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. against the U.S. Interior Department and U.S. Agriculture Department now includes the Western Shoshone Defense Project and Reno-based Great Basin Resource Watch. Part of the lawsuit involves reforms that were made under the Clinton administration then reversed under the Bush administration.
"These rules read as if they were written by the mining industry, not the government regulators supposedly entrusted with the care of the public's lands," said Roger Flynn, a lawyer for the lead plaintiff, the Western Mining Action Project.
The mining industry contends the lawsuit is without merit, said Laura Skaer, executive director of the Northwest Mining Association.
One of the challenges is aimed at action taken by the Bush administration in overturning an opinion former Interior Solicitor John Leshy issued under the previous Clinton administration regarding sites for mills, waste rock dumps and tailings ponds.
The other issue is whether mines should pay fair market value to locate facilities on public land not protected by valid mining and mill-site claims.
"We believe they are wrong in their interpretation of the mining law," Skaer told the Elko Daily Free Press. "Leshy's mill-site opinion was clearly erroneous. All the Bush administration did was right that wrong."
253. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 12,2009 @ 12:54PM
Ratings:-4+11
Following are excerpts in testimony given by Skaer before Congress Committee in 2005. She testifies the NEPA process is "burdensome":
Therefore, it is imperative that the NEPA process be reviewed and reformed to remove
inappropriate barriers to domestic mineral activity without sacrificing environmental protection. NWMA believes that reforming the NEPA process and streamlining the permitting system are
critical to improving the competitiveness of the domestic mining industry.
The NEPA process, the U.S. permitting system, restricted access to mineral deposits and the
inability to secure land tenure has made mineral development and production difficult, time
consuming, costly and in some cases, impossible.
The permitting process is cumbersome, complex, and unpredictable because it
requires cooperation among many stakeholders and compliance with dozens of
regulations for a single mine.
We are focusing our testimony today on three issues that must be addressed if the United States
is going to be competitive in attracting mineral investment dollars, which are the foundation for
the high paying direct and indirect jobs provided by the U.S. mining industry:
(1) The need to reform the burdensome National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process,
and stream the U.S. permitting system to provide certainty and eliminate unreasonable
delays;
(2) Access to mineral deposits on federal lands and security of land tenure for those deposits
and ancillary facilities;
(3) Restructure the claim maintenance or holding fee to encourage exploration.
254. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 12,2009 @ 12:54PM
Ratings:-9+2
[This comment has been removed]
255. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 12,2009 @ 12:58PM
Ratings:-4+9
Following is Skaers quote concerningthe NEPA process, remember this is the lady who wrote the article in the newspaper we are commenting on:
NEPA is no longer about the environment. It is no longer the planning tool it was designed to
be. It has become THE TOOL used by obstructionist groups who oppose responsible and
lawful mineral development on federal public lands; a project-killing, job-killing, community killing
tool.
257. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 12,2009 @ 1:03PM
Ratings:-4+10
I am asking the pro-rosemont people to stop with the personal attacks against me. Post whatever you wish about the proposed open pit mine and if I post false information, disprove it . I am asking that you refrain from trying to smear me. I will leave you alone, you leave me alone.
258. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 12,2009 @ 1:05PM
Ratings:-10+2
[This comment has been removed]
259. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— November 12,2009 @ 1:09PM
Ratings:-10+5
250. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)
That bill goes through the4 Senate, domestic mining will leave the U.S. for good. Even Senator Reid is smart enough to understand that.
That bill is designed to make the costs of mineral exploration and mining in the U.S. on federal grounds prohibitively expensive and several elitist green NGOs helpt Rahall write it in that manner. Sure we can pass it but don't whine when we see third world nations selling out and the environment truely suffering. That is what short sightedness brings.
260. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 12,2009 @ 1:15PM
Ratings:-11+4
Robert, when YOU discontinue "personal attacks", then you can talk. You treat everyone who doesn't support your views as some kind of second or third class citizen, while glorifying violent strikes and environmental groups bending the laws to suit their own purposes.
Your thinly veiled insults hurled at myself and others should indicate that you have no pedestal to stand upon.
I am sorry that people dislike you, but you have done that to yourself. When you put yourself in a public position, you are open to public opinion.
261. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 12,2009 @ 1:19PM
Ratings:-11+4
I have to ask, didn't the StarNet management clearly state that the frivolous reporting of posts would stop? I hope that this applies to everyone, and not just a select few.
263. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 12,2009 @ 1:28PM
Ratings:-11+4
Laura is saying that if they follow the law and apply the best science, trust them as the professionals chosen to represent us. If they don't follow the law, or grossly misapply it, that's when you have to question them. If they tell Rosemont, "go ahead and start building the mill and start stripping, we don't need any plans from you - we don't care what you do to with regard to water, light pollution or air quality". That's when you take on the system.
And what you're highlighting is how the process works - if you feel the system is broke you appeal to Congress! You don't just ignore the rules and let officials bend or ignore the law! That's what Laura is doing in the quotes above; she's giving testimony before Congress, asking them to amend parts of the law! It’s her job to represent the best interest of mining. It’s the job of your groups to do the same (using the process).
264. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 12,2009 @ 1:29PM
Ratings:-5+10
If I had the ability I would report more of you latest attacks but I hit the limit at three, now post whatever comments you have but leave me be.
265. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 12,2009 @ 1:32PM
Ratings:-11+4
#255
Yes, that's what miners believe. And it's Laura's job to communicate that to Congress so that they will consider changes to the law. It's the job of the other NGOs to argue the opposite before Congress... I'm sure if you talked with her, she would explain that. I'm sure she has plenty more studies which explain her position in more detail on the NWMA website. It's no secret.
266. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 12,2009 @ 1:33PM
Ratings:-5+10
Thank you Mark, that is what we are doing, appealing to Congress, the Court System and any Government official we think has any authority over the planned area. So far almost every official has came out in oppostion to the mine and we have shown some beaurecrats things about their departments they were unaware of.
267. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler)— November 12,2009 @ 1:54PM
Ratings:-11+3
As I said, I am done with this childishness.
Robert, you have won this round. Not through merit, but through making me tired of dealing with you. If you wish to be the only voice allowed on the StarNet forums, and if you choose to gain this goal through less than honest means, that is your prerogative.
You are showing your true colors for the public to scrutinize.
268. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— November 12,2009 @ 2:06PM
Ratings:-11+5
[This comment has been removed]
269. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)— November 12,2009 @ 2:15PM
Ratings:-5+10
R 268
"grow up",
Is this aother example of a personal attack. I have asked you to leave me be and stick to the issues. All I did was post other speeches she gave and other quotes, I "attacked her nowhere". The truth was in her words.
Words such as " elitist stance", "unconscionable", "convict you" "poverty alive and well" "criminal" are examples of rhetoric used to inflame, not inform.
270. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 12,2009 @ 2:29PM
Ratings:-12+4
No your side is not Robert. The opposition is trying to use every loophole and stall tactic possible. Why not wait and see what the government says after they review the first plan (and not last) plan. They may just see it your way and make drastic changes which may make their project unprofitable.
What the public doesn't need is all the misinformation thrown out (like they're going to use 160,000 acre-feet of water per year) - that's just trying to scare people so they will pressure our representatives to change the process midstream.
You’re attacking Laura for testifying before Congress about the parts of the laws that miners feel are being abused and/or are doing on good but waste money. But she’s using the process to change the laws, not asking them to change the laws to any project currently locked into that process...
271. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 12,2009 @ 2:47PM
Ratings:-12+4
H.R. 699, the Hard Rock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009, like its predecessor H.R. 2262, was written by anti-mining and environmental extremist groups, whose goal is to ban all mining activities in the United States. If this bill ever becomes law, it will accomplish its goal by increasing the risks and costs of doing business to a point that all mining companies will take their business to foreign countries just like the steel, textile and other heavy industry that once formed the backbone of our nation's economy.
273. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)— November 12,2009 @ 3:45PM
Ratings:-12+4
269. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)
Truth hurts doesn't it. However you cannot change to outcome. NIMBYism and hard core environmentalism are elitist stances and history is already judging them as such. To impede job creation at the Rosemont Mine in favor of these NIMBY stances is unconscionable and in low income areas with few job opportunities like Amado, Tubac, Patagonia and Nogales, the halting of a project such as the Rosemont Mine does in fact help keep poverty in those areas alive and well. The fact that you cannot face these facts amazes me. You should be heralding these ultimate results if you are sucessful and not trying to hide them.
274. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA)— November 12,2009 @ 3:57PM
Ratings:-13+3
Locking up access to our nation's resources is not sustainable, nor is it environmentally or socially responsible.
It fails to recognize that poverty, not development is the worst polluter.
It is also arrogant, because it assumes that future generations would make the same choices as we would.
Furthermore, it exports the negative impacts resulting from our consumption to less developed nations of the world, which are unable to effectively deal with these impacts.
275. Comment by Greg M. (Locodinero45)— November 12,2009 @ 5:48PM
Ratings:-6+10
274 Locking up access to our nation's resources is not sustainable, nor is it environmentally or socially responsible.
It is his Opinion No Facts!
274 It fails to recognize that poverty, not development is the worst polluter.
It is his Opinion No Facts because in our sad new world if quoted facts on this one we could call him Racist!
274 It is also arrogant, because it assumes that future generations would make the same choices as we would.
If he is able to assume then we can too,
and assume he does not know what he is talking about!
274 Furthermore, it exports the negative impacts resulting from our consumption to less developed nations of the world, which are unable to effectively deal with these impacts.
In his mind this means that we are richer Nation and will gladly pay more tax to deal with industry cleanup!
276. Comment by Greg M. (Locodinero45)— November 12,2009 @ 6:05PM
Ratings:-3+11
274 Furthermore, it exports the negative impacts resulting from our consumption to less developed nations of the world, which are unable to effectively deal with these impacts.
In his mind this means that we are richer Nation and will gladly pay more tax to deal with industry cleanup!
So in response to this one to be fair
to Chris J most of us think we are a Rich Nation!
277. Comment by A M. (HormelChavez)— November 12,2009 @ 7:02PM
Ratings:-11+4
Forgive me for jumping in here, especally at this late date, but I can't just watch any longer.
I've been watching these threads for quite some time, and honestly, I couldn't possibly be persuaded to join any opposition to the proposed Rosemont mine from what I've seen of the opposition. The bullying behavior exhibited by some is just terrible and the lying is beyond comprhension.
I'm just an observer here, but I see no legitimate reason to stop this mine's opening. Tucson and Arizona need quality jobs made availabel to the citizens.
Give the professionals a chance to do the jobs that we as taxpayers pay them to do, it is what they are here for.
278. Comment by Greg M. (Locodinero45)— November 12,2009 @ 7:56PM
Ratings:-4+10
277
Give the professionals a chance to do the jobs that we as taxpayers pay them to do, it is what they are here for.
Could you give us the names of these
professionals and contact info because as
taxpayers we should be able to express our taxpayer view to them, and may of missed one or two that you know of!
279. Comment by Greg M. (Locodinero45)— November 12,2009 @ 8:07PM
Ratings:-4+10
I thought Public Opinion was part of the permitting process for mines 277?
Are you asking that we give up that right?
And if you are asking us to give up our right are you in anyway in the Mine Industry?
280. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 12,2009 @ 9:51PM
Ratings:-11+4
#275
I can't speak for Horquilla, but I've been to Africa, Asia, the South Pacific, Europe and throughout North America. What I have seen during those travels hasn't conflicted with what has been well documented by organizations on both sides of the issue: impoverished nations do pollute more. And to be specific about the mining side, most national (and a few international) mining companies pay no heed to first-world environmental, safety and social standards. So it makes sense to support the large operators who maintain first world standards regardless of location. And it's good to support new projects located in first-world nations, where the highest standards are maintained. It is not opinion - it is an indisputable fact that if we rely on importing all of our metal needs, there is a greater burden on the environment. Let me be clear: supporting the best operators doesn't remove all impacts, but it keeps them at their smallest possible size. The only way to remove all impacts from mining (barring heritage sites, which will take long time management) is to stop mining all together.
If we let our current mines deplete their copper reserves without investing in new reserves (just because we can't mine in any backyard not to mention the pristine, unique areas which cover the rest of our fine nation), then the cost of living in the USA will explode because we'll have to import all of our raw materials. And without generating any new wealth out of the ground, we'll export all of our current wealth to our suppliers. But I suspect before it would come to that, sensible Americans would wake up and begin to tolerate a few holes in the ground.
281. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 12,2009 @ 10:21PM
Ratings:-9+3
#276
"
**274 wrote "Furthermore, it exports the negative impacts resulting from our consumption to less developed nations of the world, which are unable to effectively deal with these impacts." **
In his mind this means that we are richer Nation and will gladly pay more tax to deal with industry cleanup!"
Greg, I believe what he is saying is that in America we have laws which require polluters to clean up their messes (Superfund money comes mostly from taxes on industry, not independent citizens). And we have more efficient and environmentally friendly technology/techniques and highly skilled employees to apply them, neither of which are available in 3rd world nations. And we have numerous government, NGO and citizens watching over our shoulders (monitoring our radio transmission, touring our sites, auditing our books, doing white-glove inspections, etc.).
In 3rd world nations, unscrupulous operators pay bribes, and the irresponsible officials look the other way with no regard to the future impact to their country or countrymen - just to make a buck because that's how their governments work (terrible heath, safety, environmental, labor and social costs - most of which will be avoided here in the USA).
I'm pretty sure that's what he means when he says less developed nations are unable to effectively deal with the impacts of bad mining practices.
282. Comment by Mark B. (minador)— November 12,2009 @ 10:37PM
Ratings:-8+3
#278 & #279
I think it's best to wait for their report before you try to contact random government personnel. Once you read the report, you can express just what parts of their conclusion that you disagree with. You're not giving up your right to speak. It will save you and them time if you are informed as to what you disagree with them about. Once you know, you can express what concerns you have that they have ignored or haven't fully addressed. They haven't written their report yet, so we don't know how they feel about the merits of the Rosemont project.
Also, once the report is released, we all will know who it is we need to contact to express our concerns. Until the report is written, #277 can't answer your questions.
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.
Trust federal officials to make right decision on Rosemont mine
As a frequent visitor to Pima County over the past 20 years, I have an appreciation for the people, beauty and history of the area. More than 50 years of copper production is part of that history. Thus, I am surprised that so many people are expressing opposition to the proposed Rosemont copper mine before the agencies have completed their initial evaluation of the mine's plan of operations.The U.S. metals mining industry operates under the highest level of environmental regulation in the world, which include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, as well as numerous other federal, state and local regulations. It is our domestic mining industry's compliance with these laws, which makes its domestic operations some of the most environmentally and socially responsible mining projects in the world.
The impacts to which so many of you fear are a continuing legacy of mining's past, which occurred prior to major environmental legislation of the 1970's. In this respect mining is no different from any other industry. It is unfair for the anti-Rosemont folks to use this issue to condemn an industry, which has made significant environmental and social achievements in correcting its past legacies over the last four decades. Mining operations currently being designed and placed into production today are not the same types of mines that were designed 100 years ago or even 50 years ago.
Even existing mining operations, like Mission and Sierrita, which began production during the 1950's, were designed and developed at a time when environmental laws and regulations were still in their infancy or non-existent. Although these mines have incorporated changes in their operations over the years in order to remain in compliance with ever changing environmental legislation and regulations, they have experienced some environmental problems, which are in part a result of original design flaws that occurred at time, when environmental regulations were less stringent and our knowledge of environmental sciences was less well developed than today. That being said, these current operations are dealing with these environmental issues using the best methods currently available, considering their limitations.
Modern operations (i.e. Safford, Carlotta, and Rosemont) incorporate all of the new technology and mining practices that have been developed over the years to ensure that they are designed, developed, operated and reclaimed in the safest and environmentally responsible manner possible.
Many of the Rosemont Copper personnel and the supporters of the proposed Rosemont copper project are also citizens of this community and share the same values as the folks, who oppose this mining project. We support the Rosemont project because we seen the efforts Augusta Resource has taken to ensure that it will be done in a safe, environmentally and socially responsible manner and would not support it if we thought otherwise.
Report this comment
Considering the state of our nation’s economy with unemployment rates now 10.2%, there are still some in our community including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and Congressman Raul Grijalva, who have repeatedly stated that the good paying jobs, which would be offered by the Rosemont copper project as well as many additional jobs that would indirectly result from this activity, are neither needed nor wanted by our community. Instead of forcing our businesses to move their operations overseas, its time that our representatives in Washington support these efforts to put Arizonans back to work. It’s better than depending on meager handouts from the federal government, which only increase our national debt at the expense of future generations.
Large mining projects of this type are capable of pumping massive amounts of capital into the communities, where they operate. According to a recent independent study published by the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources and Arizona State University, the Rosemont project will result in an annual economic benefit to Pima and Santa Cruz counties of $745 million over the twenty year life of the mine and will also create of 2,000 new jobs for our community.
Now that is exactly the type of economic stimulus package that our community needs and when done in compliance with strict federal, state and local laws and regulations, it will not cost the American taxpayer a single dime.
Link to Article Supporting this statement:
http://www.admmr.state.az.us/Publications/sr24MinProdRosemont.pdf
Report this comment
went to the mine site, viewed its place, the community, the area, the city.. problems I see are basic.
* They are just digging here, not processing the ore to copper. - That should not be allowed, local workers should produce that.
* All the raw ore is going to be shipped to Mexico to be processed. - That should not be allowed to happen. Not only should be processed here and hire local workers if its going to open.
* They don't have a rail line! They plan on "Trucking" all the ore to Mexico! which means lots and lots of truckers hauling ore from this site through the city, or on the highway to the Douglas area.. or another rail head which makes huge volumes on traffic in this area. Not a solution... should not be allowed.
* All the ore goes to Japan and China. If the price is right FINE.. where's Arizona's share of the natural resource that is being removed. - The state is desperate for money right now. No pay, no dig.
If they can't get this items right - let'em dig their hole in China.
Report this comment
You, Ms. Skaer, may be a "frequent visitor to Pima County over the past 20 years," but YOU are also from Washington where I presume you have NO water problems. AND you are a NON-BIASED advocate of the mining industry, so you will kindly take your nose out of our business and stick to the Pacific Northwest.
OH, and as far as "TRUSTING FEDERAL OFFICIALS," . . . . . . . HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! !
Report this comment
It's so nice to see with the economy in the sh*tter, so many people will oppose this mine.
Report this comment
To Bill (#3)
You are wrong on many counts. First they will be processing the ore at the Rosemont site. This information is available in Rosemont's plan of operation, which is available to all to see on the internet. If they are shipping any thing out to the country, it will be the copper concentrates not the ore. As for the shipment of the concentrates to Mexico, I don't think that has been decided yet, as it would be impossible to write or sign any contracts not knowing exactly when production will begin at the site.
The primary reason why some domestic copper producers ship their concentrates overseas is insufficient smelter capacity in the United States. Over the last three decades, thirteen domestic copper smelters have been closed due to the high costs of maintaining these facilities in compliance with ever changing environmental regulations as well as the introduction of dump leach-solvent extraction-electrowinning technologies, which have eliminated the need for smelters to produce a marketable copper product. A side benefit to this reduction in smelter capacity has been a significant reduction of the amount of sulfur dioxide released into the atmosphere, reducing environmental damage resulting from acid rain.
There are currently only three operating copper smelters in the United States. These smelters are owned and operated by Phelps Dodge (now Freeport), Kennecott and Asarco, the nation’s three leading copper producers. With the closure of many of our nation’s domestic smelting facilities, these companies have gradually gotten out of the business of processing concentrates for copper producers, who have no smelting and refining facilities, and currently only have enough smelter capacity to treat the copper concentrates derived from their own mining operations. As a consequence of the business decisions by the major producers, copper operations like Quadra Mining’s Robinson project in Nevada or Augusta Resources’ proposed Rosemont copper project are forced to ship their copper concentrates to foreign smelters or go out of business. If smaller operators like Quadra Mining or Augusta Resource were able to find a domestic smelter to treat their copper concentrates, I am sure they would, because they would be able to significantly increase their profits by lowering their overall costs of production through the reduction of expensive concentrate shipping charges that range up to 30% of their total cost of production.
One must also consider the fact, that even some of the copper, which is smelted and refined at domestic facilities finds its way into the international marketplace. However, if you examine export/import data, you also will find that the United States imports much more unmanufactured copper from foreign countries like Chile, Canada, Peru and Mexico than it exports to foreign markets. In 2008, 760,000 short tons of unmanufactured copper consumed in this country was derived from foreign sources, including about 251,000 short tons from Canada. Like many other commodities, such as oil, the United States does not produce enough copper to meet its domestic needs, which only adds to our ever expanding trade deficits that have accelerated to unsustainable levels since 1997. The cumulative impact of these trade deficits over the last twelve years has had a devastating impact on our nation’s economy and it is this dependence on foreign goods, which has been one of the major causes of our nation’s current economic crisis. It is also why many of the jobs once held by Americans have been transferred overseas and why future domestic job growth will remain stagnant as our nation attempts to recover from this crisis. Furthermore, the federal government’s economic stimulus programs are incapable of producing sustainable economic growth and will only increase our national debt, another major cause of the current economic crisis. Any job opportunities created by this stimulus program will cease when the money runs out.
Sustainable economic growth can only be achieved, if we produce more of the raw materials and manufactured goods we require to maintain our comfortable lifestyle. Development of the Rosemont and Resolution copper projects would not only be good for the economic vitality of our community and state of Arizona, but it would also help our nation create the wealth it requires for sustainable economic growth.
Report this comment
Our children will hate us for this mine.
Will Rosemont fill in the hole ?
Will Rosemont remove the tailings ?
Will Rosemont reconstruct the mountaintops that make Tucson's Southeast skyline ?
Will Rosemont prevent dust from blowing onto Tucson ?
Will Rosemont prevent polluted water from draining down the Pontano/Rillito/Santa Cruz waterways ?
Will Rosemont somehow replace the water consumed at the mine and by power plants ?
Will Rosemont reimburse land owners for property value losses ?
Hard rock mining enjoys exemptions from many air and water pollution laws. Tucson is downstream and downwind from the proposed mine. On hazy days, the air pollution over Tucson is usually from mines West of Green Valley. It is not frequent because the dust usually blows away over the reservation. Tucson will be the destination of most Rosemont dust. Our laws hardly protect us from this pollution.
Noise from incessant blasting is not regulated.
The surface runoff hydrology and groundwater hydrology of the mine site have not been studied sufficiently to determine how water pollutants will run off and seep out of the mine. Our government is yet jumping the gun on even considering approval of the mine instead of requiring proper studies.
After the best ore is removed, they will no longer own the mine (mines simply go bankrupt), and the public will forever pick up the liability.
Not one water source available to Tucson has any surplus that the mine can tap. Every drop they take will be a loss to someone local. Rosemont offers to 'bring in' CAP water in exchange for groundwater they will take. The CAP delivers water 'on paper' that does not actually exist in the river as the river is over-allocated. So who's CAP water are they proposing to take away ?
Report this comment
Chris J For how long have you worked for the mining interests.?? What is your job title ?? Truth please...
Report this comment
Our children will hate YOU for trying to pin them down in degrading, soul crushing tourism jobs and associated low paying service sector employment.
"Incessant Blasting"? Even the biggest mine (Morenci) only puts off 2-3 blasts a day, usually no more than 5 days a week. I will assure you that I live closer to the pit than anyone in the Tucson area would live to Rosemont, and the blasting isn't even noticeable most of the time.
"Mines simply go bankrupt"? Where do you get these ideas? For example, Freeport McMoRan still owns Ajo, Bisbee, Miami, Christmas, etc. which have all been inactive for years.
As for the CAP nonsense, that big paper canal is pretty neat. You would think that all that water would soak right through it.
Report this comment
Trust Federal Officials
Hilarious. Didn't Reagan have something to say about that?
What a case of cognitive dissonance for those on the right who support Rosemont(all four of them)and distrust the federal government.
This fiasco will, hopefully, be killed or put off well beyond most of our lifetimes. The mine folks claim 400 jobs paying the princely sum of maybe $40k.
Not worth diddly squat compared with the rape of a beautiful mountain area...forever. Take a ride down to Green Valley and see what the mining inustry thinks is reclamation.
Rosemont and Ms. Skaer: take your mine and ....
Report this comment
To Robert R (8)
Just because I or others who favor this project disagree with you in these forums does not mean we have been paid to do so.
I could have asked you the very same question about your affiliation with those groups who oppose the project, but have not done so out of respect I have for your opinion irregardless of what that opinion may be. All I can ask is that you show me the same respect as I have shown you.
Report this comment
#11 actually, I have not made up my mind as to for or aginst this project. I just get the feeling that you're a "sleeper" for the industry and are not being truthfull as to your affiliation. Have you ever worked for the mining industry. Do you now ? You skillfully avoided my question, didn't you.???
Report this comment
What a joke this commentary is!
"Trust federal officials" is not exactly what ant-gov't righties or pro-environment lefties or any NIMBY is really going ot believe.
Report this comment
5 So from your point of view, we should forget about everything else for about 400 jobs that can quickly evaporate when the price of copper drops? D U M B
Look at San Manuel. All those good jobs, the mine and the smelter all evaporated when the price dropped.
Report this comment
Everybody, please identify what you do for a living and kindly refrain from commenting on anything you have any expertise in.
By the way, I have no association with Augusta or Rosemont or any mining company operating in Arizona. I'm a Tucson resident and I think Skaer's article is right on target.
Report this comment
Rosemont has a chance to open their mine only because humans have a poor imagination of time scales. Rosemont is trying to entice us into a short lived mining boom. The bust will be within some of our lifetimes, but the lasting destruction will be on a geological timescale (pun intended).
Tucson's Southeast skyline will be ugly for 100,000 years or more. Taxpayers will pay for $multimillion cleanups repeated many times over, as the site decays.
Tourism and recreation will suffer economic losses that seem small today, but will add up over time to much more than the value of the molybdenum and copper at Rosemont.
Air and water pollution will make 4000 or more generations a little less healthy, and their lifetimes will be a day or two shorter.
Desolation of Tucson due to depletion of our non-renewable water supply will occur much sooner, within our children's or some of our lifetimes.
Our children and theirs will hate us for this mine !
Report this comment
Mark S. San Manuel was around for more than 40 years and provided careers with benefits to many working class people people and continues to pay retirement benefits (including health care) to many retirees.
How many other non-government companies in Tucson can boast as much?
Report this comment
#16 - The Tucson skyline will not be affected. Rosemont's high wall is designed not to break the ridgecrest. Augusta will leave ore in the ground to avoid that.
So - Rosemont's effect on Tucson scenery will be less than the TV antennas on Mount Bigelow; not that those seem to affect the number of people who drive up the highway to Mt. Lemmon.
Report this comment
It is unfair to refer to Chris J as a shill for the mining interests without any evidence. He has frequently asserted he is an independent consultant to the mining industry and posts his voluminous tracts on line (to be read by maybe 500 people)because he feels strongly about the issue. There is absolutely no reason to question his word.
Now, if you want to hear from a mining industry shill the Star has accommodated us today with this load of whatever Ms. Skaer is peddling.
We all know how immune the Federal Agencies charged with protecting our federal lands are from bribes and intimidation, right? If Bush had another 4 years they'd be strip mining the Grand Canyon and drilling off the US Virgin Islands.
Trust the feds?
I don't think so.
Report this comment
Lets ask all the layed off copper miners, because the demand is down, if another mine is needed.........
I could support the new mine IF the older mines in the area were at max production, hiring people and the demand was up. As far as the people saying that we don't have a vision of the future, do you or do you have a vision you'd like to see.
Report this comment
Seems this is a typical article from someone with a title of:
Laura Skaer is the executive director of the Spokane, Wash.-based Northwest Mining Association, a nonprofit trade group that advocates for mining interests.
Bet she puts this same opinion article in every single city paper that is battling with a proposed mine.
I wouldn't trust anyone who says to trust Federal officials. Wonder how much Augusta paid her for this article?
Rosemont would only be around for 18 years unless, of course, you were to count the other 3 sites that they plan on mining, close to Rosemont, that they are trying to keep under the radar. Wonder how much water those would use?
Report this comment
i hope they bulid it so i can get a job their and continue to support my family people thats what its all about "family" support why should the green valley people care the mine is on the other side of the mountain they're not even going to see it and we need to work so they can continue to get their social security checks every month how they forget the last stat i saw it takes five of us workers for one retired persons social security check every month and also the environment will take care of it self thats mother nature for us thats what it does the mine will be like a grain a sand on a beach i agree with num 17 look how many people benefitted from magma n retired and put their kids through college and what have you the mine will be a great asset to local business and to the tucson economy and to all the people that are laid off right now and looking for jobs and also copper is more precious than gold we need for every aspect of our lives cars, computers, cellphones, homes , etc. go rosemont i support you all the way and about the wildlife they can run to the other mountains in the valley to play we have so many of them they aint going to hurt for food or water thet have the rincons they have the santa catalinas they have mount graham, they have all kinds of places to roam so get over green valley your enjoying your retirement let me work so i can enjoy mine too.
Report this comment
Commander Marcos
Funny how you ask everyone posting to refrain from speaking unless they have knowledge of the mining industry and its practices in 15 (*Everybody, please identify what you do for a living and kindly refrain from commenting on anything you have any expertise in.*)but don't tell us what you do.
Aside from the fact that your challenge is so far out of bounds (what does Commander Marcos do for a living?),as others have said in different forums, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Why not post some links to photos of successful reclamation projects by Rosemont? In Arizona.
Oh, I forgot. Rosemont has never operated a mine. My bad.
No real track record. Let's just trust them despite the horrific remnants of mining in clear view throughout Southern Arizona.
Right.
Report this comment
To Robert R (12)
Yes I am a consultant who works in the mining industry. If you have read any of these forums over the last two to three weeks you would known this, because it has been made perfectly clear.
However, I am not being paid by Augusta Resource Corporation, Rosemont Copper or anyone else to comment in these forums. It is being done at my own time and expense, because I recognize the seriousness of the issues involved and the necessity to make the pro-mining's views on these issues known to the public. Does that answer your question?
Report this comment
To Richard S (23)
Formed in 1834, Phelps Dodge was a prosperous mercantile firm, which did not get into the mining business until 1881. When they entered the mining business, they hired trained mining professionals like James Douglas to manage their mining operations. This business strategy was quite successful and allowed Phelps Dodge to grow into one of the world's largest mining companies.
Like Phelps Dodge, Augusta Resource has hired some of the top professionals in the mining business to manage their proposed Rosemont operation. Its ultimate success or failure will not be due to its inexperience in the mining business.
Report this comment
Chris 25
Like Phelps Dodge, Augusta Resource has hired some of the top professionals in the mining business to manage their proposed Rosemont operation. Its ultimate success or failure will not be due to its inexperience in the mining business.
Please post some links to photos of successful reclamation projects managed by these top professionals.
Copper mining has been a staple of the Arizona economy for over a century. For over a century the mining industry has left behind ruined poisoned land and ghost towns.
"Trust us" is asking a bit much given the history of copper mining in Arizona.
Report this comment
To: 21. Comment by Hilda G. (Hilda)
Thank you. I was just going to post that that the Opinion writer had an affiliation with NWMA. Here is the website if anyone wants to view it.
"Northwest Mining Association".http://www.nwma.org/
Report this comment
Northwest Mining Association
And, Augusta Resource is a Corporate Member. Imagine that!
Report this comment
Arlene
The article clearly identified Ms. Skaer as the Executive Director of MWMA, a shill for mining interests.
Report this comment
To: Richard S. and now people can read all about it. It is easy for people to forget what is in the article and only focus on the comments.
Report this comment
Quote by writer
"and be allowed to bring long-term economic prosperity to the region"
My idea of long term prosperity is not 18-25 years.
Report this comment
Trust federal official?
The same federal officials who said they could not use the no-action alternative which is legal alternative?
Now that the USDA has told the FS what it knew all along, the entire project should be halted until it has gone through the NEPA process as the agency has the ability to stop the project.
Report this comment
I entrust NOTHING for our immoral and corrupt govt to do
except screw its citizens
Report this comment
To Richard S (26)
Jamie Sturgess was involved with the initial design and planning of the successful reclamation efforts at the Golden Cross mine in New Zealand.
Links:
http://www.minerals.co.nz/html/green_from_gold/gx.html
http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/110h/33608.txt
Report this comment
She's just kidding right?!? Trust federal officials on this -not in this lifetime.
Report this comment
The same federal officials who during the initial round of scoping deliberately excluded the area that would be most directly and indirectly impacted by the proposed project?
Report this comment
The same federal officials who denied a hearing to the same area?
Different subject:
People in Green Valley could be affected through water issues (the water assumptions of this project are not based on traditional mining although the Company can convert to traditional water use if it chooses)
Green Valley could be impacted by truck traffic-concentrates and other vehicle use.
Green Valley's viewshed would be impacted by proposed transmission lines to the project.
Green Valley has the possibility of other mines on the west side of the Santa Ritas related to this project.
If any of the above were to occur they would be cumulative effects/impacts to their existing situation.
Report this comment
HORQUILLA - Thanks for your post, the information I'd gotten was from local land owners in the area, retired teachers, that I was working for. I've heard of a smelting method that attaches large volume oxygen truncks to the smelter, open the valve, raw expansion of the gas creating the heat to smelt the ocncentrate to copper and other metals. My understanding was that there was this type of opeation in San Manual. Quite clean air wise, the making of the concentrate producing large amounts of sufuric acid that had to be trucked out. Why don't they use this type of method to make the copper product here.
Why is there no rail to the mine planned? all the trucks would be dismal to the small highway and area.
I agree with your views that 'we don't make the product we import it' being a huge part of the problem this country faces right now with its national debt.. as well as the solution to current ecconomic problems. Seems I had some 'mis-information from the locals. It also sounds like your very close to the mine. I have no problem with that. Thanks for the post.
Report this comment
So far all I see here is alot of fear mongering, through the spread of false, misleading and contradictory information about the Rosemont Copper project.
For those of you who are truly interested in learning more about this important issue that will impact our community, I would suggest that you take a one of the tours that Rosemont Copper is giving the public. Then you will have the factual information from both sides of this important debate.
Report this comment
well I sure don't want foreign companies mining in my back yard!.Green Valley is a an eyesoar and so will the Scenic Santa Ritas be if they allow this mine to drill and blast in the area.
And I am pretty sure there have been studies of the destruction this mine will put into the enviroment of the area.Besides who would trust Gov. officials
they are nothing but LIAR'S!!!
Report this comment
#24 Yes it does. Thank you very much
Report this comment
If you think is hard to open a mine here, try building another smelter. Besides the cost of building a smelter just to handle the concentrates from Rosemont would be prohibitive. Although there are other alternatives to smelting the concentrates such has pressure oxidization and leaching of the concentrates to produce a marketable copper product at the minesite without smelting, the low total sulfide content of the ores combined with its high carbonate content render this method ineffective in this case.
Rosemont's only option is to sell the copper concentrates to a domestic smelter if they can find one who will take the concentrates or ship them to a foreign smelter for treatment. It should be noted that Rosemont will be one who is paying to have the copper concentrates shipped to a foreign smelter, which will increase their total production costs on the order of 25 to 30%. I'm sure they would perfer to ship it to one of the three remaining domestic copper smelters remaining in the U.S., if they could find one to take the concentrates, because in doing so it would significantly increase their profits from the operation.
Report this comment
The majority of the posts today concerning "facts" are yours and Jefferson C's. Are you saying they are "false, misleading and contradictory?" My posts have the truth in them, can you prove otherwise?
Report this comment
"Trust the federal government." That has a familiar ring to it. Oh yea, "the check's in the mail."
Or how about the best ever. "We are from the federal government, and we are here to help."
Yea, but who?
Report this comment
re: For those of you who are truly interested in learning more about this important issue that will impact our community, I would suggest that you take a one of the tours that Rosemont Copper is giving the public.<<
Unless they can give a tour at a mine where they are actually doing everything they are promising to do here, I'll remain skeptical, thanks.
It all sounds good on paper, but the industry's track record is poor, and none have done a complete life cycle on a mine of this size and scope under the reclamation practices proposed.
There is also no indemnification against Rosemont's failure. Their promises are only as good as the company.
I'd prefer they experiment elsewhere.
Report this comment
Perhaps BHP should not have closed the mine in San Manuel if lack of smelters was such an issue in the US?
Report this comment
Trust Federals no no no.You can buy and sell them every day.
Report this comment
Madam, the federal government could not run a brothel in Nevada, so why are we to trus them with something as important as the environment?
Report this comment
Arlene has asked about what posts were false or misleading, I have a few examples but there are more:
1. #36 - The very first public open house was held in Vail and there were a total of 9 meetings in the area. I am sorry but 30 miles is not far in a city like Tucson.
2. #32 - The Forest has never said they won't consider the No Action alternative, they have simply said that they cannot choose it. Sec. Vilsack's letter made that clear and his retraction did not change that.
3. #31 - Your idea of prosperity is not 18-25 years, this is an opinion only - in less time than that I could retire, put my kids through college, etc. The impacts are not just for that period but will love longer than that when you look at what my kids will contribute.
4. #32 - The entire project should be halted...the project employs hundreds of people in Tucson, Sonoita, Vail, etc. right now and I understand that there has been $100 million or more spent so far. What do you propose halting - the engineering, the PR work, the catering, the website work, the environmental studies? Or is it the grant at the University that you think should be given back so the students cannot finish their master's work?
5. #37 - The company could switch to "conventional mining if they wish" another misleading statement. Permits have requirements and if you cannot meet the requirements you cannot operate. It is that simple you cannot change your plans on a whim. Yes the could switch but only after they went through another EIS process so "if they wish" is very misleading.
6. #37 - GV will be impacted by traffic - why would anything be shipped to GV? At most, I-19 may be used for some shipping but there are no facilities in GV that will process the products or produce the raw materials so this is an out and out lie.
Report this comment
Where does the ADS dig up these hacks for opinion articles?
Report this comment
Hopefully, the Federal Agents will not be as uninformed as you are. You state that “many opponents assume the mine will pollute the water, land and air, without any evidence to support those assumptions.” The why have I had to spend 5 years of my life to get mining slurry out of the public water in Green Valley, and the Tohono O’odam nation is facing the same problem, one site involves radioactive chemicals in groundwater.
Further, you have not informed yourself of the water situation. Water supply comes under state laws, not Federal. Hundreds of people are getting paid to study and figure out how Tucson region is going to have water for the next 100 years, even issuing 100-year water supply certificates that will be null and void if when these new high water users come in and deplete the certified water supply.
The situation is beyond compliance with laws. The Santa Rita section of the Coronado National Forest was set aside for urban recreation and to protect the area from the ravages of cattle grazing that had already destroyed the grasslands; therefore, the creation of the Experimental Range, so see if it was possible to recoup the vegetation.
Now we are expected to surrender the region to the ravages of copper mining. You may not know what the ravages are, but we do. Mining companies promise economic prosperity, but a drive through Arizona’s mining district, Morenci, Winkleman, Globe, Miami will squash that opinion. All these towns were mining has operated for 75 years look like a third world country. There is not a single sign of prosperity anywhere.
So take you lack of knowledge and go back to Washington state and enjoy all the clean water and air there!
Report this comment
Rosemont....Is a death trap for all of us. AIR quality is very importain here in southern Az.That why we moved here.
You start digging a Big Old Ugly Hole In the Ground And dust fly for miles.
This compeny well never be made to clean-up the mess they make.
They well rape our State, take the profits and leave. Super fund or not we will have to pay to clean it up.
Report this comment
I belong to the SCCA, "Spokane Clear Cut Association". Please allow the logging companies to clear the dark forests that surround your area letting in more sun so you won't have to visit here. And trust the Forest Service and BLM to make sure it's done tastefully.
Report this comment
#20, all of the mines in the Santa Cruz valley are at max production, except for Twin Buttes, which is owned by a non-mining company who don't have the ability to operate it... Rosemont hasn’t the right to move in on their property and begin operations.
I know lots of people native Arizonans who would love the opportunity to work at a new mine, even if the mine life is only 20 years. That's enough time to raise a family, and if one plans wisely, you would have a nice nest egg saved up.
Laura is right; let the professionals determine if they meet the current standards required by law. Isn’t that the job we’ve given them? Don't listen to the emotional arguments funded by other commercial interests who use 5x more water than Rosemont. And as far as attacking those who work as geological, mining or environmental consultants. Who would you rather trust; lawyers and community organizers, or professionals who have the education and experience to maintain gainful employment in an extremely complex and competitive industry (and the professionals who have been granted the responsibility of stewardship over our public lands and also those who operate the numerous agencies who govern environmental and safety standards. And regarding the environment; a pound of copper mined in Arizona has a much smaller burden on the environment than a pound mined in the 3rd world. You don’t like blood diamonds, but seem comfortable to accept blood copper – looks pretty inconsistent to me… Can you give me an example of a new American mine supported by any environmental group? The Rosemont group has bent over backwards to use every BMP endorsed by green groups, but nobody ever supports a company who plans to incorporate those practices…
Report this comment
#20, all of the mines in the Santa Cruz valley are at max production, except for Twin Buttes, which is owned by a non-mining company who don't have the ability to operate it... Rosemont hasn’t the right to move in on their property and begin operations.
I know lots of people native Arizonans who would love the opportunity to work at a new mine, even if the mine life is only 20 years. That's enough time to raise a family, and if one plans wisely, you would have a nice nest egg saved up.
Laura is right; let the professionals determine if they meet the current standards required by law. Isn’t that the job we’ve given them? Don't listen to the emotional arguments funded by other commercial interests who use 5x more water than Rosemont. And as far as attacking those who work as geological, mining or environmental consultants. Who would you rather trust; lawyers and community organizers, or professionals who have the education and experience to maintain gainful employment in an extremely complex and competitive industry (and the professionals who have been granted the responsibility of stewardship over our public lands and also those who operate the numerous agencies who govern environmental and safety standards. And regarding the environment; a pound of copper mined in Arizona has a much smaller burden on the environment than a pound mined in the 3rd world. You don’t like blood diamonds, but seem comfortable to accept blood copper – looks pretty inconsistent to me… Can you give me an example of a new American mine supported by any environmental group? The Rosemont group has bent over backwards to use every BMP endorsed by green groups, but nobody ever supports a company who plans to incorporate those practices…
Report this comment
I would submit that comment #39 sounds very similar to the following opinion piece written by mining consultant David F. Briggs that was printed in the Starnet from 11-2-09. Just saying.
Fear is Rosemont foes' main weapon
Report this comment
Augusta Resource Corporation is a member of Northwest Mining Association
So the Author of this story has a Conflict of Interest!
Members
Report this comment
My question is why does the ADS continually print these questionably "fair" opinions? What is does, is give Chris J. and Jefferson C. a sounding board to spew their promotion of the mine, with the intent of winning over less informed readers. There is no positive side from the ADS doing this. I wonder how many "paid subscriptions" Augusta buys from the ADS that would want them to support such unfairness. Let's have articles about the water, safety on Hwy 83, the forever remaining destruction of the land and all the other negatives. I wont tell you where I work and no, I am not a liberal, and now I dont live nearby the proposed mine.
Report this comment
Should have been Chris J. (You know, the one who just happens to always be the first poster when an article about the mine is written. I wonder how he knows that another one is coming out.)
Report this comment
The fact is if most Americans thought 18-25 years out, this country wouldn't be in the mess it's in now.... Some AZ mines were opened with government grants, maybe if we wait 20 more years, our tax dollars will be used to open the Rosemont deposit - how you like that alternative?
And #45, it just isn't feasible to send you to mines which use the technology Rosemont proposes (such as dry staked tailings)... They're not required to use that method, but when they're operating, would you rather they use it?
Report this comment
Trying to confuse Tucson's eco-NIMBYs with factual information is a complete waste of time.
Report this comment
Let's not forget who was in Green Valley first. If you think the mines were an eyesore, why did you move here? If mines are such bad neighbors, why has Green Valley and Sahuarita exploded in population? There are trillions more acres in America where a mine (or old mines) aren't visible (or feasible) - go move there and leave our traditional way of life alone... You don't like our mines, and we don't like your subdivisions and poor driving...
Report this comment
#57, one of the most vocal groups against the mine has ties with a commercial enterprise which uses 5x the water Rosemont will use. Isn't that a hypocritical position if not a conflict of interest?
When I have questions about the healthcare reform proposals, I ask doctors and nurses, not community activists or lawyers. If I didn't have a clue about mines, I'd visit mines and ask their professionals... Not people who throw out crazy accusations like toxic dust and populate every sentence they write with every negative adjective or adverb they can pull out of a thesaurus...
Report this comment
#63
I agree the residents of Tucson
Use More water because there is a million of them.
And they are against the mine!
Or were you talking about Green Valley again?
Report this comment
And we all know
A lot Pro-miner comments today will be from Northwest Mining Association Members
So disregard all out of State opinions.
Arizona does not need Washington telling us what to Do!
Report this comment
I'm talking about the Pecan orchards which use 30 Acre-feet of water per year, and have a much, much smaller impact on the local economy than Rosemont will. Small bang per gallon water uses (which is flood irrigated and only 20% is reused). Unlike Rosemont which will utilize they process water over and over again...
Report this comment
correction 30,000 acre-feet per year...
Report this comment
So can I Quote you
That you want to lay off pecan workers?
Report this comment
I can speak for me. I'm not a member of the NWMA. I'm a local, native copper miner who is amazed at the misinformation being thrown out by the anti-mining crowd. Today I'm amazed that they're the most anti-government "big-goverment" folks around...
Report this comment
No, I want all the job providers we can get at the moment - I have family looking for work. Haven't you heard people need jobs.
I AM saying that you folks are being led by the nose by people who don't care about you, but only their personal business interests...
Report this comment
I want pecan orchards, mines, ball parks, new convetion centers, gem shows, new factories, missile factories (jobs, jobs, jobs).
Our local government can't seem to fix the roads or fix our broken area, but they all are standing up against the mine (what good is that?).
Report this comment
The proposed Rosemont copper project is not just a local issue. It has become a part of much larger national issue, which deals with land use, water, our national economy, development of our nation's natural resources and how our nation is going to deal with the environmental and social challenges of the 21st century.
Successful resolution of these issues requires that we all work together to find solutions to these problems and make compromises on those issues, which we can not agree. Unless we can do this, American society will continue to decline and die the same way many other civilizations have during history's past.
Remember the quote by the famous philospher, George Santayana: "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it".
We can either work together to resolve our nation's problems or we remain divided and fail. There is no other option. Its your choice.
Report this comment
Superfund Sites that we are paying for fall under this quote also..
Remember the quote by the famous philospher, George Santayana: "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it".
Report this comment
To Greg M (73)
I don't know where you been since the enactment of our nation's environmental laws in the 1960's and 1970's, but our domestic mining industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in cleaning up its existing and former operations over the years and continues to set aside large sums of money for future cleanup efforts. It is actually very rare for the taxpayer to be stuck with the cleanup bill.
Report this comment
Then why did Pima county have to threaten fines to clean up a site?
Then why did Pima county have to Fine Cal-Port 750,000 dollars?
I have been here Chris J
What about the spill at the other copper mine all this in last 3 years.
Report this comment
Green Valley Clean up of dusting town
do I need to quote more?
Report this comment
#74, Wouldn't it just make more sense NOT to make a big, expensive environmental mess that needs to be cleaned up in the first place?
Report this comment
How many Homeowners are injured by dust from blasting it can be good to breath.
You can not water down a blast, I have seen it first hand.
Report this comment
Cars Covered with dust
Houses Covered with dust
Yards Covered with dust
Georgia Marble
1993-2000
Report this comment
Also, over the course of all these discussions, I have yet to see anyone answer the question of where future generations will get their "all-important copper." Since you claim it's such a necessary and valuable commodity for our convenient, modern lifestyle and creates all these fabulous high paying jobs and is such a significant and historical part of Arizona's economic base, what do you propose for our children, grand children and great grandchildren?
Oh yeah, I remember, your solution is to mine the other planets later.
Report this comment
Well lets see...
Pro mine folks are up to their same tactics of denial and misleading the public. They say we need this mine and tout the jobs it will bring.
Then the facts start coming out and their rhetoric unwinds.
1) Water consumption is a main reason for NO mine.
2) Our Aquifers and riparian preserve water shed must be protected.
3) We in Arizona voted to pay for the Cap to stop the falling aquifer levels and the drying up of the local ecosystems. This mine did not pay a dime for the CAP installation and deserves none of its benefits.
4 We should not allow for further environmentally unfriendly development and exploitation of our dwindling water resources.
5) This mine is the wrong thing to even consider in our fragile local environment
As far as this writers rant about trusting the government to do what is right... I'm not a moron and I have watched my government in action for many many years and can honestly say that the government is corrupt and lacks any moral backbone collectively.
The only folks I trust less than governments are the multinational corporations who are destroying our planet as fast as they can for their profits.
Smelting in Mexican pollution factories should not be allowed. The only reason there is a lack of capacity to smelt ore here in the US is because Multinational corporations find it more desirable to pollute and kill workers and citizens in foreign countries to save a dime, than to pay what it costs to do things with environmentally sound processes here in the US or Canada.
Lastly,
I love my country but I fear my government!
Don't even go there with the rant about their paying to recharge CAP water and the pipeline to get it to Green Valley. What they pay per gallon for this CAP water is like 1/100,000,000th of what the actual cost per gallon is to get it to where they will pipe it to Green Valley from the CAP aqueduct.
Report this comment
Lets get these permits cleared, open this mine and get Arizonans back to work.
Report this comment
To Rachel P (80)
Don't even go the argument that the anti-mining folks are trying to save it for future generations. If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Many deposits, that could not be mined during the early 1900's are profitable to mine today, due to changes in the metals prices, advances in technology, advances in mining practices and reclamation methods, and our better scientific understanding of their complex geological setting. There will occurrences available for future generations to mine.
Almost all of our nation’s current operating copper mines have been production for more than 50 years with some having been production for more than 100 years. As production continues over time, the ore grades (copper content) decrease, requiring operations to increase the production capacity just to produce the same amount of copper. At some point, it is not going to be economic to continue increasing capacity just to maintain current levels of copper production. That is known as the "Law of Diminishing Returns". Furthermore, just meeting current levels of copper production is not going to meet our nation’s current projected future demand for the metal. At some point it is no longer going to be economic to mine at these existing mine sites. Considering the long lead time it takes to place a large mining operation in production (5 to 10 years) before the first pound of copper is even produced, it is imperative the responsible development of new copper projects like Rosemont or Resolution be permitted to proceed in order to assure an interrupted supply of copper is available to our nation's consumers.
Report this comment
A total whitewash from a paid employee of the mining industry. She knows that Washington is mostly corporate occupied territory, so of course she says "trust federal officials" . It's the federal officials on an individual level that can't be trusted. A great many of them are former mining industry employees. I believe that our system of government is the best on Earth, but it's been corrupted by the infiltration of Big Business.
Report this comment
Let me preface this by saying that "I couldn't be more on the left until someone falls off the edge of the bench".
Isn't that an oxymoron "Trust the Federal government". These people (Rosemont) don't care about us. They're in it for the money. Just look at what they're going through to get it. This would be a good time for the government to lead the way in "Green", not allow it, and listen to the people for a big change, not the money mongers. However Trust - no way.
Report this comment
Comment 83
Makes about as much sense as that fine print on my credit card...
Report this comment
Tourism and recreation will suffer? You actually think people will choose not to visit Tucson because Rosemont operates a mine here? HA...thats crazy. This mine will create around 2050 jobs for Rosemont and in services provided to the mine. each of those men and women with families means helping thousands. OPEN this mine
Report this comment
I hope we eventually can make mining so unprofitable that we make reclamation of all raw materials through recycling becomes more viable and the norm rather than the a rarity!
There is plenty of metals out there we just need to reclaim them and reuse them!
So stop with the rants about we need more copper and start talking about how to reclaim these materials in our disposable society!
This movie Download that explains where we are going on our current path.
You can download The Story of Stuff in its entirety from this site. Simply right click the link bellow and save the target as to your computer (50 MB).
[url] http://www.sosvids.com/StoryOfStuff.mov[/url]
Or you can go to the download page yourself here
Report this comment
http://www.storyofstuff.com/downloads.html
Report this comment
If you don't want to download it you can view it on google video here...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9153550196656656736&ei=DAP7SrvaCJ3KqQKL4PjqBA&q=the+story+of+stuff+video&hl=en#
Report this comment
"Trust federal officials to make right decision on Rosemont mine"
I hope that the pro-Rosemont people will still feel this way when the Forest Service determines that it is NOT appropriate to give Augusta Resources the right to turn America's National Forest land into a toxic waste dump!
Report this comment
Northwest Mining Association is committed protecting employees only!
No were does it discuss protecting the public!
NWMA HEALTH AND SAFETY STATEMENT
NWMA HEALTH AND SAFETY STATEMENT
THE NORTHWEST MINING ASSOCIATION (NWMA) IS COMMITTED TO AN INJURY FREE WORKPLACE FOR ALL EMPLOYEES:
“The NWMA sincerely believes that all injuries are preventable.”
Northwest Mining Association recognizes that each member company addresses the health and safety of its employees in different ways, and each member company is committed to an injury free workplace so that everyone can go home safe and healthy after each day’s work. The NWMA’s Health & Safety Committee has requested company members to share their health and safety standards on the NWMA’s website for everyone interested in improving their health and safety culture.
The members of the NWMA Health and Safety Committee feel that posting company health and safety standards on the NWMA website will allow for the sharing of best practices, leading to minimizing health and safety incidents in the mining industry.
Best practices are ways to better achieve health and safety results by eliminating hazards or controlling risks. They offer examples of procedures for others who are trying to control similar risks and achieve better results.
If you are a company interested in having your health and safety standards posted on the NWMA website to share your company’s best practices please contact
Report this comment
Jewelers urge miners to clean up
Tiffany leads way with ad against Montana mine
LAURA SKAER OBJECTS
The woman is a mining lobbyist.
Report this comment
#56 Rachel in the Star article that you give the link for David F. Briggs email address is given as geomineinfo@aol.com
In a Star Blog Rosemont Has A Fan In Toronto Chris J. Horquilla's email address is geoconsultant@aol.com
Another commenter pointed to this so I checked it out.
David Briggs has done consulting work for Rosemont. He has a consulting business called Geomineinfo and has a web site. However checking with the Arizona State Registrar Of Contractors, I found no listing for David F. Briggs or his consulting business Geomineinfo.
On his Geomineinfo web site David says his data was used to design the proposed plant and facilities at Rosemont.
Report this comment
Another story the author is involved in.
mercurynews.com
"We believe they are wrong in their interpretation of the mining law, Skaer told" :www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_13610138
Report this comment
#88 "I hope we eventually can make mining so unprofitable that we make reclamation of all raw materials through recycling becomes more viable and the norm rather than the a rarity!"
Wow, just wow... You clearly out of touch with reality and how the world works. That's just nuts. Our current lifestyle would be impossible. Just as a comparison to something people understand, the cost of products would be on an equivalent basis $50 or $100's per gallon gas. And people scream about $3 or $4/gallon gas...
Even with people stealing all that copper a few years ago, we were only recycling small percentages of the copper we need. I'm not against recycling, but it will never come close to what we consume. Most of it gets tied up in long term structures like houses and cars. If there was plenty of metals which you can recycle for pennies rather than by mining them, people would be doing it (like aluminum is cheaper to recycle than to mine new).
So you're saying that Laura is biased, but that website with the video isn't? We are in business to make copper, and envirionmentalists are in business to stop our capitalist system. But make no mistake - we are BOTH in business...
Report this comment
So where is a link to any mine supported by environmenatal groups? There aren't any...
Report this comment
Rosemont has a local PR firm. It looks like a few of their employees are here today.
Report this comment
Neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party are the cause of the economic crisis that now confronts our nation. Both parties are equally responsible for the crisis in which we now find ourselves. They have told and continue to assure the citizens of this nation that we can have it all without regard to who is actually going pay for these excesses when the bills finally become due.
This problem has been festering for three to four decades and only now has become so serious that policies once used to temporarily resolve it are no longer effective in dealing with it. These policies have only been designed to treat the symptoms of our problems, but do not effectively deal with the underlying causes of our nation's serious economic crisis.
The real cause of America's economic crisis is our inability with live within our means. These problems are of our own making. Real solutions to our nation's current economic crisis will require substantial changes in how America conducts it’s business at home and abroad. There are no quick, painless solutions to these problems. Any sustainable solution to our economic problems must substantially reduce our nation’s huge trade deficit. That would result in the injection of hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy, which would otherwise be diverted overseas. In order to accomplish this task, we need to restore the wealth producing sectors of our economy, which will allow our nation to once again create the wealth it requires for sustainable economic growth. Until our representatives in Washington make a concerted effort to restore the wealth producing sectors of our national economy, the problems that currently plague our nation’s economy will only worsen.
The citizens of Arizona have an excellent opportunity to help play an important role in restoring our nation's economy through their support of Arizona's mining industry and new projects like Rosemont and Resolution.
Report this comment
#92
Don't confuse safety and health of employees to public safety. Mines are safer and cleaner than most public places. I can show you permanent safety hazards in Vail that would shut down a mining area until it's fixed (but somehow what is dangerous in a mine is safe for the public). And as far as chemicals, there are more toxic hazards under the sink at your house, than at all the offices, lunchrooms, meeting rooms at a mine property...
Here's a link to follow:
http://www.globalreporting.org/Home
Report this comment
96. Comment by Mark B. (minador) — November 11,2009 @
""Even with people stealing all that copper a few years ago, we were only recycling small percentages of the copper we need. I'm not against recycling, but it will never come close to what we consume. Most of it gets tied up in long term structures like houses and cars. If there was plenty of metals which you can recycle for pennies rather than by mining them, people would be doing it (like aluminum is cheaper to recycle than to mine new).""
For the 99th time:
THE ROSEMONT COPPER IS GOING TO CHINA
THE PROFITS ARE GOING TO CANADA
Report this comment
If you want to really understand the relationship between America's economy, its political system and its use of military power, I suggest that every American take the time to watch the following video of a Bill Moyers interview with historian, Andrew Bacevich.
Here is the link to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl1CXVymxfk
Now, this is a six-part video and it will take about an hour of your time, but I think it will be worth the effort.
And no the video does not deal with copper. However it deals with oil, where many of the same issues we are now discussing also apply.
Report this comment
To Thomas C (101)
The profits generated by our domestic mining operations are distributed to the stockholders of the mining companies, irregardless of where the company's headquarters is located. And many of these investors, include Americans.
Furthermore, profits generated by these mining operations are only a small fraction of the total cash flow generated by these facilities. Most of this cash flow is spent here in America to operate our domestic mines, where it benefits local communities and our nation.
One must consider the fact, whether copper concentrates are smelted and refined at domestic facilities or shipped abroad to foreign facilities, some of it will always find its way into the international marketplace. That is how the free market system works and we certainly can’t change that just because a few individuals would want America to make an exception in this case. However, if you examine export/import data, you will find that the United States imports considerably more unmanufactured copper from foreign countries like Chile, Canada, Peru and Mexico than it exports to foreign markets. In 2008, 760,000 short tons of unmanufactured copper consumed in this country was derived from foreign sources, including 251,000 short tons of unmanufactured copper from Canada.
Like many other commodities, such as oil, the United States does not produce enough copper to meet its domestic needs, which adds to our ever expanding trade deficits that have accelerated to unsustainable levels since 1997. How does forcing domestic industries to relocate overseas reduce our dependence on foreign goods or benefit America? The cumulative impact of these trade deficits over the last decade has transferred and continues to transfer much our nation’s wealth overseas. Just think of the positive economic impact this money would have had on our economy had it not been sent overseas to pay for goods that American workers could have produced here. The prospects of a bright economic future for our nation are bleak, unless we are able to reverse this trend and produce more of the raw materials and manufactured goods we require to maintain our comfortable lifestyle.
Report this comment
To Thomas C (101)
So what if the copper is going to China. If we force all of the mines to close and send the economic benefits and jobs they provide to our nation overseas, the only thing we will be sending overseas is our existing wealth (i.e., our dollars) just to purchase the things we require to maintain our affluent lifestyle and that we are not willing or able to provide for ourselves. How does that help our nation's economy or help resolve the severe economic crisis we now find ourselves. It only makes our nation more dependent on foreign sources for the raw materials and manufactured goods we require to maintain our comfortable lifestyle. Your solution is simply unsustainable and will result in the decline of our civilization like so many civilizations of history's past.
Report this comment
ROSEMONT PR FIRM HIJACKED SAVE THE SCENIC SANTA RITAS WEB SITE
"""Strongpoint recently purchased a bunch of Web site names nearly identical to www.scenicsantaritas.org. And just coincidentally, of course, the latter site is owned by Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, a group fighting the very mine Rowley hopes to hype."""
This is the type of tactics these people use. Yet they say: trust us ????
Report this comment
To Thomas C (105)
That's old news that has been around for at least two years.
Report this comment
How many jobs would your recycling center create? Would they last 20+ years. Would they help as many people provide a paycheck for their families. People posting in favor of Rosemont are part of the local PR firm? maybe just fellow Arizona miners who know others in need of a job.
Report this comment
Many individuals opposing the Rosemont project claim that they support the mining industry, but oppose this particular project. If this project was located somewhere else, they may well support it, but there will be others who live in that area, who will be against it. The bottom line is virtually everywhere the natural resource industry proposes developing an operation in this country, there is opposition like we are now experiencing in our community.
If we can't produce the natural resources our society requires to sustain our comfortable lifestyle, where to we mine these raw materials? Is it morally right to demand that third world countries produce the raw materials that we could otherwise mine here in the U.S., if it were not for this local opposition that inevitably occurs when a project like Rosemont Copper is proposed? Aren’t you asking the citizens of some third world country to bear the consequences of the same environmental damage, which you so adamantly claim would occur here, if the Rosemont Copper project is permitted to proceed? If so, why should the citizens of some third world country be forced to deal with the negative consequences of mining activity that supplies the raw materials we use to maintain our comfortable lifestyle, when we are unwilling to deal with the same issues ourselves?
Report this comment
I started in the metal mining business as an unskilled laborer back in 1978 and remain in it today. I’ve worked hard for several different companies extracting different minerals, been promoted, earned a good living, and paid my taxes. I’ve been involved in several start-up projects, most notably an open pit gold mine in a National Forest that is still in operation and which has reclaimed the land it has disturbed to the satisfaction of the Forest Service and BLM.
The mining industry is one of the most heavily regulated and inspected industries in the US. It continues to pay for the sins of its past. The environmental regulations that were formulated in the 1970’s and made increasingly restrictive were deserved as the industry was plagued with numerous irresponsible operators. Today, the industry has consolidated and only the strong, long term players remain. Their in-house environmental and regulatory compliance departments are generally superior to their governmental counterparts in experience, expertise and education. Any new mining or mine expansion proposal in the US that has addressed and met all the regulatory and financial challenges, including the financial environmental bonding, has been well and truly vetted. When the writer of this editorial says “trust the government”, I’m going to assume she means trust the government to ensure that even the smallest details of this proposed operation have been vetted and that penalties for non-compliance have been adequately addressed. You can rest well knowing the government will be breathing down the company’s neck every minute of every day just looking for an excuse to put them out of business. And if any company can successfully emerge from the application process with its will to conduct business intact, I’m thinking that company is a solid citizen and equipped to handle the vagaries of the metal markets.
Nonetheless, state and federal legislation will grow ever more burdensome and convoluted and it will eventually accomplish exactly what set to do: namely drive all mining out of this country and in the process, denying future generations of guys like me the chance to earn an honest living. Mining in the US in more than a heritage: it is a necessity. And we do it here better than anywhere else, despite the competitive disadvantage the regulations impose. And for that segment of the population that refuses to let facts get in the way of its opinions and would prefer to have its copper mined overseas in countries that have no EPA or MSHA: Everything we have today is either mined or farmed. Everything.
Report this comment
R 106
Chris said
That's old news that has been around for at least two years.
Yes Chris it is, it took almost two years to make the PR firms release the names. They released them when it was pointed out they were breaking Federal laws by sitting on the website names .
Report this comment
Basic points missed, they have a licence to mine, they own the property.
Will we be paying them not to work?
Report this comment
I see she conveniently left out the destruction of US83 and the traffic increase of up to 88 semi trucks per day down the two lane highway. This is so typical of the copper mine industry hacks.
Report this comment
R 111
Basic points response
#1 They don't have a license to mine
#2 They don't own the property, most of it is National Forest
Report this comment
R 111
I would throw 10 bucks in a kitty to send them back to Canada though.
Report this comment
106. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) — November 11,2009 @ 12:39PM
Ratings: -3 +0
Thomas C (105) posted
"""Strongpoint recently purchased a bunch of Web site names nearly identical to www.scenicsantaritas.org And just coincidentally, of course, the latter site is owned by Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, a group fighting the very mine Rowley hopes to hype."""
106. Comment by CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) — November 11,2009 @ : Replied:
""That's old news that has been around for at least two years.""
My current response:
The age of the article is irrelevant. The facts are relevant It shows that Rosemont was playing dirty pool even then.
Why should we believe that anything has changed?
Report this comment
An example of the type of "study" used to justify the takeover of thousands of acres of National Forest is posted on the rosemontcopper.com website. It is their traffic management study that was performed by a "non'biased" firm. The study is in excess of 500 pages put about page 17 is the exam-les of the car pooling that the study is based on. The two scenerios are 100% car pooling and 75% car pooling. It is difficult for me to trust studies that are ebased on such false assumtions. Read for yourselves and determine for yourselves, just understand that most of the land we are discussing is National Forest, not private land.
Report this comment
Chris J. Horquilla: do you do anything else besides sit at the computer 24 hours a day and profess the wonderfulness of open pit mining? I notice your postings start at 00:01 hrs and go on until 23:59. Just curious.
Report this comment
I was re-reading the article by Ms Skaer and I think she left out a point. Her comment was "Trust federal officials to make right decision on Rosemont mine " What she didn't point out was every government official for three counties has came out against the proposed open pit copper mine on National Forest land. That includes "both" of our Federal representatives. So my question is, Why doesn't SHE trust our Government officials? Is it only CERTAIN officials we can trust, the ones she works and talks with with her pro-mining organization that Augusta is a member of?
Report this comment
I guess we should all be greatful to Chris J.(Horquilla) and other hacks for donating their own time and efforts to put a shine on a disaster in the making. You think they would be in DC where the could be making big buck putting out c rap. Maybe this is just a way station and they are trying to build a reputation. Could be material for their portfolio.
Report this comment
The headline is great.
I don't trust federal officials to make the right decision on anything.
Report this comment
#101
the USA is a net importer of copper, once on the open market you can't control where the copper goes, just know that we have to buy more than we make. Maybe someday we'll get in an equilibrium whereby the copper made here is purchased here, but right now, people buy when they need it from where it's available. They don't wait until they can buy it down the street...
The tax revenues are staying here, the wages are staying here. Should we stop buying Toyotas because the profits go to Japan (but many Americans are employed by Toyota)? How many American companies have branches located outside the States? A lot of them do - it's a reality. Your argument doesn't hold - we're dependant on foreign sources of copper...
Report this comment
If you want to try to open a recycling center and employ 400 people, you're free to do that (just don't do it in Pima County - you'll get shouted out).
But I'm going to use the current channels and methods of doing business (why reinvent the wheel?). We mine for a reason (because recycling cannot come anywhere close to suppling what is needed).
Report this comment
R 121
Mark B said
The tax revenues are staying here,
An example of this great "tax revenue " is the taxes they now pay. For a 160 acre parcel they are paying about 40 dollars a year. A question to you the average citizen of Pima County, is that the type of tax rate that you pay ? It's much less than what I pay. I think I can do without this windfall "tax revenue" and save the 12,000 acres of un-patented mining claims Augusta has made on National Forest that they pay NO tax revenue to Pima County on.
Report this comment
First, let me say that I have worked (as a Geologist) at Rosemont on the geologic evaluation team; however, am no longer employed there. I would like to see the mine come into fruition because I genuinely feel it would be of great long-term benefit to all of us, locally and nationally.
But, let’s address the argument that mines are only temporary, and that mining operations and connected jobs, etc., are lost when the price goes down. Is this not true of many segments in our free-market based system, with our ever-fluctuating business cycles (growth vs. recession)? Economically speaking, nothing is forever; mines can close but open back up again when the price is right; and for the past century Arizona mines have provided continuous livelihoods, health benefits and retirement benefits for many mining families, and provided stimulus to the economy. Incidentally, Rosemont technologies will make it one of the most efficient operations around, capable of sustaining itself at much-lower copper prices than at the current $3/ lb.
And speaking of “temporary economies”, what about the recent short-lived housing “boom” which brought a brief spell of prosperity to the area, its ultimate collapse putting multitudes of construction workers, carpenters, builders, real estate agents, etc. onto the unemployment roles? It will take awhile, but the housing market will recover. And what of the high-tech boom of the 90’s, the so-called “new economy”, which collapsed in recession, resulting in one of the biggest stock market crashes in history? The “new economy’” high-tech sector is here to stay, but will continue to have its ups and downs. And the old industrial economy will continue to grind along, as usual.
And metals-mining is no different; susceptible to economic cycles and fluctuating world demand for industrial commodities. But make no mistake about it, the Rosemont copper mine will ultimately become reality; simply because it is there, is a tremendous resource asset, and the economy will demand it.
Report this comment
Call your Pima County Supervissor, ask them "How much is Augusta "Rosemont" paying in taxes and then decide for yourself about these advantages of taxes.
Report this comment
To Robert H (118)
You know, the opinions of political leaders really don't count for much. It is the opinions of the intelligent, hard working citizens of our community that will ultimately make the difference on this issue.
Public opinion on the proposed Rosemont project has always been in favor of this environmentally responsible project irregardless of what the opposition says and will only increase as our citizens gain a better understanding of the issues involved. When they come to realize how our political leaders in Washington have been promising to bring good jobs to Arizona, but behind closed doors in Washington have been supporting legislation that will actually result in the closure of much of our nation's remaining industrial base and transfer of good paying jobs overseas, they will overwhelmingly support this project.
Like leafs in the wind, our political leaders will eventually change their opinion about the Rosemont project or will be voted out office. It is as simple as that.
Report this comment
#117
no need for personal insults, where is your argument against the project?
Chris has the right to speak out - we don't attack you guys for writing a lot of posts. Parties on both sides write a lot of thoughts when time is available (though we don't tend to give out private email addresses...).
Report this comment
Excuse me Mark, that is not a personal insult. It was a legitimate question. Of course he has the right to speak out, nobody is denying that.
Report this comment
Unless you think that being accused of professing the wonderfulness of open pit mining is an insult.
Report this comment
Rosemont is a great place for a mine. For starters there is a world class copper deposit located at the site, which is situated in a historical mining district that has more than 100 years of mining history. It is also located in a rural area, which is close a major metropolitan center, where there is quite of bit of infrastructure available to support the operation and a large workforce of trained workers, who have experience working at open pit mining operations. Furthermore, there are also a significant number of consulting and service companies, which provide services to the mining industry located in the Tucson area.
Report this comment
There are some in this community who look at area’s mines as just see an ugly hole in the ground. When I look at the area’s mines, I see the wealth, opportunity and prosperity these mining operations bring to our community. Mining is one of the basic industries, which forms the foundation of modern society. Without these basic industries, modern society would simply not exist.
Report this comment
There was a news report about a week ago that approx 750 jobs would be lost in the Sierra Vista area dealing with the unmanned aircraft program. Just a brief story that I didn't even catch in the newspaper, guess they don't have the pro-unmanned aircraft people posting comments to support them. My point is, "We are going to lose more in the way of wages from that one program that is proposed for RosemontAugusta with their 400 jobs and closing off a National Forest." Things need to be put in perspective.
Report this comment
R 131
I see the ugly hole when the hole may drain the Cienega Hydrogeological water basin with a 2600 foot deep hole that is approx a mile across. Seems to me the definition of "a hole"
Report this comment
To Robert H (132)
According to a recent independent study published by the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources and Arizona State University, the Rosemont project will result in an annual economic benefit to Pima and Santa Cruz counties of $745 million. 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.
Now that is exactly the type of economic stimulus package that our community needs and when done in compliance with strict federal, state and local laws and regulations, it will not cost the American taxpayer a single dime.
Link to Article Supporting this statement:
http://www.admmr.state.az.us/Publications/sr24MinProdRosemont.pdf
Report this comment
Just more misleading and false propaganda by the environmental and anti-mining folks. I'm not surprised by their response, which is an attempt to use the public's poor understanding of modern mining operations and its fear of the unknown to spread their false and misleading statements about a noble and honorable profession without which modern society would not exist.
Report this comment
Do you seriously think they only pay land taxes? You should look at what the local mines pay in taxes, and payrolls they generate (those people also pay taxes and pump activity into the local economy).
Mining in Az brings new wealth out of the ground - it makes the pie bigger. The state government estimates that AZ copper mining alone puts ~$5 billion into the AZ economy (not to mention what cement, sand & gravel and other sectors of mining contribute).
Report this comment
So how is the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, going to affect Rosemont
Chris J?
One World Government? Globe may not be big enough.
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The New World Order came into being at 4:25 Tuesday afternoon.
Washington Post
Report this comment
You meant that to belittle him as if he doesn't have a life and only stays on his computer, get real.
That's not a legitimate argument "do you do anything else besides sit at the computer" "just curious".
Don't try to spin it. He posts a lot because he has spent many years in the mining industry and wants to clear up the confused facts he sees getting thrown out.
"Chris J. Horquilla: do you do anything else besides sit at the computer 24 hours a day and profess the wonderfulness of open pit mining? I notice your postings start at 00:01 hrs and go on until 23:59. Just curious."
Looks like you're trying to make him seem like a loser to me...
Report this comment
More to add to my #94 comment. Augusta Resources/Rosemont has no employees (according to Google Finance an Reuters), just corporate heads, approximately 15 they started with 4. Augusta contracts all work to be done out to other companies, consultants etc..
Now according to Arizona State Laws, if you get paid $500 or more for your service you have to register with the Arizona State Registrar of Contractors. I found several mining consultants and geologists registered, I did not find David F. Briggs or Geomineinfo listed.
I'm not sure about requirements for a business license, I did check and found no business license for David F. Briggs or Geomineinfo.
Report this comment
I'm surprised that Ms. Skaer expressed surprise at the huge amount of opposition to the Rosemont Mine since she lives in Washington State where in 2004 the voters approved an initiative to ban the use of cyanide for new gold mining operations because of the history of disastrous pollution from gold mines. In 1998 Montana’s voter’s passed a similar initiative. It’s also surprising that she believes that existing laws will ensure that the Rosemont mine won’t pollute our environment and that the Forest Service “will make the right decision”. As executive director of the Northwest Mining Association, Ms. Skaer should know that the Mining Law of 1872 currently overrides most other environmental laws, including the ability of the Forest Service to flat out deny the Rosemont Mine based on potential environmental impacts (but that may change soon!). In Arizona, mines are exempt from most of our groundwater protection laws, and do not have perform an analysis of the impacts from their groundwater pumping. Lastly, her assertion that today’s mines protect the environment ignores the fact that according to a 2006 report, over 73% of all western open pit mines violated water quality standards when the NEPA process determined that they would not cause any water pollution. See the report by Maest and Kuipers at http://www.scenicsantaritas.org/water.asp
Report this comment
Don't put words in anybody elses mouth, pal. Nobody called Horquilla a loser, he has been posting 24/7 and repeating the same mantra for nearly a year. I am not trying to spin anything, just pointing out the mine hacks are redundant, and we don't feel like having the Coronado used as a Copper Company dump. Chill, por favor.
Report this comment
So Linda, why don't you report him?
Report this comment
I did't see any argument against the mine, just a personal comment addressed to him.
We're not mine hacks - and talk about redundancy? Everyone knows that some of the copper will go to China and that Augusta is a Canadian company. Tell us more about the toxic dust - I'd like to get a sample to send to the EPA...
Report this comment
Answer, one step at a time.
Report this comment
137
So anyway Chris J I feel we are all screwed on this one.
Report this comment
Ok, good cause if you're going to throw that out, you need to make sure to follow up (and not just smear him and make people question his integrity because of a few quick checks).
I'd just hire a legitimate firm to do a thorough background check.
Report this comment
"88 Billion Copper"www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/63452.html
JALREZ VALLEY, Afghanistan — In this Taliban stronghold in the mountains south of Kabul, the U.S. Army is providing the security that will enable China to exploit one of the world's largest unexploited deposits of copper, earn tens of billions of dollars and feed its voracious appetite for raw materials.
Report this comment
So just give up our national forest, Our sons and daughters, so China feed its voracious appetite for raw materials.
Report this comment
7. Comment by wit w. (Wit)
Every point you attempted to make is a lie.
14. Comment by Mark S. (Mark S)
Not when the price dropped, when the ore ran out.
81. Comment by ken p. (wellnow)
If water is the main reason for not allowing mining we had better shut down the pecan groves south of Tucson. They use uyp to 34,000 acre feet of water per year while the mine will only use 5,000 acre feet. Stop all home building as approx. every 15,000 homes uses the same amount of water Rosmont proposes to use, 5,000 acre feet.
Report this comment
#143 Quit baiting everybody, will you? We don't have to agree for this to be a reasonable debate.
Report this comment
#150, Ok, as long as you stick to the mine and not single people out about non-mine issues, I'll do the same.
Report this comment
132. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)
Over 500 jobs ditectly at the mill and mine. 6,000 sustained and created in the supply and materials field.
Report this comment
So if our army is protecting a copper deposit for China is this not another mine clean up operation paid with our tax dollars?
Why do we supply all the copper needs and only get cheap products in return?
Report this comment
When I look at the products we buy I see
will fail or need to be replaced in 2 years or less.
And don't want the failing product to be labeled AZ Copper!
Report this comment
Take Pride AZ Miners
Built us a Copper product that will last a Lifetime!
Report this comment
[This comment has been removed]
156. Comment by Randy S. (skinnyman)
So we should pay more attention to the elitist Environmental NGO shills spouting falsehoods about the mine on here? Shirly, you jest!
The AZ Legislature and Governor is even putting their support behind this mine and looking for ways to bring other new mineral exploration and more mining to our state.
Report this comment
#102 CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) I have already seen that video and I agree 100% there are many issues to be faced and resolved. Not the least of wich is the decline of the American Empire! Tough times are coming and we are unprepared for what awaits us.
We who live in this arid desert region need not look too far to see the consequences of over allocation of limited water resources and improper industrial effluent treatment.
For me a good source for information has been PBS.org
BLUE GOLD "World Water Wars"
Watch the trailer for this PBS documentary on water wars!
BLUE GOLD "World Water Wars"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikb4WG8UJRw
It is available on Netflix for viewing and it is highly recommended.
We are in trouble with water in the desert southwest and can not afford future developments that would further strain our finite and dwindling water resources.
We are fighting developers, mines etc out of the need to preserve our way of life. Unsustainable development by any industry needs to end.
As for recycling of metals our problem isn't the lack of materials to recycle it is the lack of industry recycling it or developing technology for cost effective and environmentally sound ways to separate and process those recyclables. Industry needs to produce more recycle friendly products etc etc...
Report this comment
Trust federal officials to make right decision on Rosemont mine
NOT.
Report this comment
re: which is an attempt to use the public's poor understanding of modern mining operations and its fear of the unknown<<
I think the public has a pretty good understanding of modern mining operations:
*It involves a really, really big hole in the ground;
*The stuff that comes out of the ground occupies more than its original volume once removed needing significantly more area than the original hole;
*It involves oceanloads of water;
*It involves lots and lots and lots of big trucks hauling things from there to somewhere else;
*Whatever cleanup is to be done involves a lot of money;
*All other use of the land the mine occupies and the land where the waste goes are unusable for other purposes during and for at least some time after mining has ceased. Which is a long time;
*Mining companies come and go;
Are you with me so far? So, we need to decide whether an environmentally significant multi-use recreation area with a dwindling supply of water and a falling water table connected to the supply chain by a narrow road that also serves as the only access to nearby communities and recreation areas is the best place for a company who has no way of indemnifying or guaranteeing future resources and who has not yet successfully demonstrated the mining practices it plans on developing is the best place for said mine.
Was there something else about modern mining you think we need to know? That about covers it for me.
Report this comment
Re: #140 (Robin L)
You are incorrect in saying that the 1872 Mining Law “overrides” most environmental laws. Proposed mining operations must undergo the same scrutiny under NEPA as other proposed activities on public lands. And most responsible and credible companies today will meet their obligation to make things “right” within the requirements of the law.
However, the Mining Laws do give one the right to prospect, stake claims and mine hard rock minerals on public mineral lands. So, even though the miner is required to meet the requirements of NEPA, he cannot be denied the legal and constitutional right to develop a valuable mine under the 1872 Mining Laws. Whether you like it or not, these are the facts, plain and simple. This is why the USFS is balking at a “No Action” option, being pushed by the local opposition, which would be technically illegal, fought vigorously by industry and most likely thrown out of the courts. At best, this is a delaying tactic by opposing special interests, environmental groups and NIMBYS.
Efforts to close all the Santa Ritas to future mining, or to radically alter the 1872 Mining Law, are crazy and dead-end bound; Representatives Grijalva and Giffords are deceiving hopeful NIMBYS into thinking this strategy will work; Congress won’t buy it. Study the history, look up the laws and regulations, and enlighten yourselves.
Report this comment
Gosh, I sure hope there are some anti-mine editorials coming or I would be confirmed in my concern that the Star is in bed with Rosemont.
What I've seen are 2 recent pro-mine editorials (Brigss and this woman), but no others. Apologies if I've missed them, but if not, hope the Star is planning the rebuttal editorials...
Report this comment
re: #158
The mines and the miners staked out the southwest and towns sprang up near the bigger strikes. That was long before AZ became a magnet for the snow birds and nut jobs who have stressed the scarce available resources. Reminds me of the people who move out to the country next to a pig farm and start complaining about the smell.
Report this comment
Can we enact some kind of cap-and-trade policy on Chris J? Honestly, it's one thing to be an active participant in forums, it's another to basically sabotage them by endless rhetoric and intolerance of opposing viewpoints.
Report this comment
140. Comment by Robin L. (NIMBY)
WRONG! More misinformation. The 1976 Federal Land Policy Managment Act (FLPMA) changed all provisions of the 1872 mining law that pertain to the environmental protections as well as ownership rights. In addtion the FLPMA mandated that a study be performed on all federal lands to determine their ecological, environmental and socio-economic values. This was mostly complete by 1996 when the first major changes to the mining regs were made. The rules were published and became final in January, 2001 including the Surface Management and Reclamation Reg, 3809.
Report this comment
149. Comment by August B. (EcoRealist)
"amount of water Rosemont proposes to use, 5,000 acre feet."
Are you kidding me!
The mine proposed in their own documentation that they plan to use 1,600,000 acre feet over 10 years. That is 160,000 acre feet per year. Now they state the mine will operate 20 years will that be 3,200,000 acre feet of water?
That is a small amount of water when using copper mining standards. There is quite a bit of doubt that this as yet untested in Arizona technique can really get by on such a small amount of water.
Put this in prospective...That is twice the entire contents or Roosevelt lake
Quote/
Roosevelt Lake is the oldest of the six reservoirs constructed and operated by the Salt River Project. It also has the largest storage capacity of the SRP lakes with the ability to store 1,653,043 acre feet (2.03900 km³) of water at full capacity.
Report this comment
Ken, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. He will never lie about the magnitude of the water use or environmental or traffic safety problems. And this gal from Washington State has such a conflict of interest that it is funny they even put this drivel in the paper today.
Report this comment
166. Comment by ken p. (wellnow)
Your information is absolutly wrong. I have reviewed the Plan Of Operation. 5,000 acre feet per year.
As far as Roosevelt, that lake is drained twice-over every year for farms, SRP and power generation. Get your facts straight!
Report this comment
17 isn't there still plenty of ore in the ground there?
It WAS indeed good while it lasted, but they closed shop (and cleaned up pretty nicely) when the price of copper fell. If they'd kept that open, we wouldn't need to be thinking about a mine in the Santa Ritas yet.
Report this comment
Typical mine blasting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xds8wFMv_2w
It is going to be at least three times per day (according to a poster above).
WOW look at that dust and there is no way to control blasting dust.
Report this comment
169. Comment by Mark S. (Mark S)
The ore that could be profitably mined was removed. BHP accessed a very veed deposit but found that the ground was too heavy to hold and backed out. That was over 2 miled deep. Even at todays prices or even double the ore was too costly to mine, if it even could be. Heavy ground at that depth is deadly not inclusing rock spalls and floor bucking. A spall is spontanious rock explosions and bucking is the floor suddenly moving upwards from inched to feet. Both can kill miners or break bones.
Report this comment
Re 170.
Don't call it a scare tactic that is reality.
Report this comment
I'm not ready to give up using copper, so I know it must be mined somewhere.
I'd just like to see it done elsewhere than Rosemont and Oak Flat.
The big new mine in Safford is a fine example of a reasonable place to mine.
Report this comment
To Mark S (173)
And it took 10 years to get approval for the operation at Safford, where the major issue was also water.
Report this comment
#169. Comment by Mark S. (Mark S)
It WAS indeed good while it lasted, but they closed shop (and cleaned up pretty nicely)
We will see if it cleaned up pretty nicely since I know miners who worked there and tell me about buried unmarked waste containers with oil and other such contaminants in them along with broken equipment buried in side shafts. These are likely come back to haunt us now that it is flooded.
166. Comment by ken p. (wellnow)
Your information is absolutly wrong. I have reviewed the Plan Of Operation. 5,000 acre feet per year.
I think it is time for you to show proof of your claims as I was at their meeting and they were awfully proud of the 1,600,000 acre feet over 10 yeas. They really played up the dry tailing process and how little water that 1,600,000 acre feet was when compared to conventional copper mining techniques.
I also read it on line in their press releases. They don't talk about the water use much anymore since that is one of the communities biggest concerns.
Report this comment
If you are talking about 5,000 acre feet per month I think even that is a low WAG on your part. They document their proposed usage in their well pumping and pipeline documentation. So where is your documentation coming from?
Report this comment
I have written it several times before--looks like I will have to keep writing it because you mining guys have short memories, too much breathing of toxic dust and chemicals I suppose.
There have been two new mines in Arizona that environmentalist did not oppose in the last five years! Safford and Mineral King--which was actually a re-open and big expansion. Both are in isolated areas, not in a National Forest that was created for urban recreation. So now you have the facts, so quit whining about environmentalists and face the facts, mining and people do not go together.
Report this comment
[This comment has been removed]
To all the anti-Rosemont allies:
We all have our deep-seated knowledge that and why the proposed Rosemont mine is wrong on so many levels. We must remember that most of the pro-mine commenters here stand to gain financially from this mine. We must also realize that they are running scared and that we must not stop voicing our opinions and our concerns.
This story is just another opinion piece that they hoped would work in their favor, but their arguments are so weak that it is all turning against them.
Keep up the good work and KEEP SPEAKING YOUR MIND.
The Rosemont controversy may not go away for a very long time, but I feel strongly that as long as we keep speaking our minds (and there are many more of us than there are of them), that this mine will NOT happen.
Report this comment
The Safford mine WAS opposed, hence why the permitting process took so long. Oddly enough, though, the people that actually LIVE in Safford weren't unanimously opposed. Much of Safford's economy has historically gotten a huge boost by Morenci. They understood that the mine means jobs and revenue filtered into the local economy.
Report this comment
My question was
Why waste Good American Copper on Cheap
Products and see no response....
Report this comment
#180, Chris P., well I would say that the Rosemont mine is nearly unanimously opposed by BOTH the people who live in the area and many others. So they can waste as much time and money as they want on the permitting process, but I'm convinced it will NOT be approved in this case.
Report this comment
Hey August B. I've been following the possible strike by Frys and Safeway. I notice you don't support Unions.
So much for all those good paying mining jobs being promised by Rosemont a foreign owned mining operation.
#210 Comment by August B. (EcoRealist) November 10,2009
Last paragraph, The union is screwing you and attempting to hold up the people of Arizona. I will be sure to shop at Frys and Safeway and smile at the picketers as I do.
The above was in yesterdays Star comments on the strike, and there are several more comments by August B. in today's articles on the strike.
Report this comment
To: Tom C # 45
1. Wrong. There were three initial public open houses, none of which were in Vail. After Rep. Giffords stepped in, there was one public open house. That is the only open house held in the 430 square mile boundaries of the Vail School District. No hearing was held in this area.
2. "Consider all alternatives" means all alternatives will be considered. Very simple for those who understand.
3. I prefer to care about more than short term gain. Historically, 18-25 years is extremely short term. I care about more than my children graduating from HS. I care about other people’s children and my grandchildren and great-grandchildren down the line.
4. Yes. The law should not be subjugated to suit the needs of a company who does not have a mining permit. Please show me the facts that show "hundreds" of people are employed by the company now? (if it is 101, please do not bother)
5. Obviously you have never heard ADWR speak. It can be done, that is a fact, regardless of the path.
Report this comment
I'm convinced Rosemont WILL be permitted to proceed, if not now and by Augusta, by somebody someday.
I disagree that Rosemont is nearly unanimously opposed. It just so happens that those you associate with also oppose the mine. If you allowed yourself to step outside your comfort zone, you just might find that more people are for the mine than you can possibly imagine at this moment.
Like it or not, Arizona has historically been a mining state. Why? Because there are huge mineral deposits found here. Some people's families have been mining in Arizona for literally several generations. Those that were unfortunately laid off in February, as well as other currently unemployed workers from around the state, are probably foaming at the mouth at the opportunity to make a decent living. But I guess you don't know and/or associate with those people, so all you see are those opposed. I can understand where you'd get the idea that it's unanimous, but really, it isn't.
Furthermore, I do understand the concerns that many share in these forums. I just feel, from personal experience, that much if not most of the concerns are not based in reality. That is my OPINION. I'm sure you probably think I'm not based in reality, but I live next to the largest copper mine in North America, so I can see for myself the plentiful water, and utter lack of devastation to the environment.
Report this comment
To: Mark B. # 97 "So where is a link to any mine supported by environmenatal groups? There aren't any..."
Do you ever attend any meetings on this subject? I personally have heard two entities (one of which you bash constantly in here) and a separate one speak for real mining companies in the area
Report this comment
To: Vincent #111 "they have a licence to mine"
Untrue. They do not.
Report this comment
To: Samuel A. #124. "Economically speaking, nothing is forever; mines can close but open back up again when the price is right;"
Are you saying you have inside knowledge that they plan to stay open longer than is listed in their MPO?
Report this comment
To: CHRIS J. (HORQUILLA) #126 "You know, the opinions of political leaders really don't count for much. It is the opinions of the intelligent, hard working citizens of our community that will ultimately make the difference on this issue."
Are you saying that our local political leaders are dumb and lazy? I thought political leaders responded to their constituents. Darn those dumb and lazy political leaders for listening and responding.
Report this comment
Chris P.,
I believe that you have noted in your comments to previous stories that you are a mother, and I'm very sure you love your kids and want the very best for them now and in their futures.
I share your sympathy for miners (and their families) who have been laid off. But how can you honestly believe that this is a sustainable industry or lifestyle? You state that "some people's families have been in mining in Arizona for literally several generations." This is true I'm sure, but what do you want for you children and grandchildren's futures? Do you really believe that Rosemont or other similar mining ventures will continue to be available to them 20 to 100 years out so they can participate in this wonderful industry that you espouse?
I encourage you to give serious consideration to what kind of country your decendents will live in and what kind of resources will be available to them if we extract all our natural resources here and now, and in so doing, destroy the natural beauty and intrinsic wealth that makes this such an amazing place to live.
Report this comment
To: Mark B. #138
I do not believe anyone said Chris J. was a loser. You are the one who said the other poster was trying to imply that. I did not get that from the post. I have wondered about the vast amount of time he spends here. Also, are you saying that people who spend a lot of time on the computer are losers? I don't believe that. What if they are a home based business and can do both? What if they have a physical disability and this is one way they can help the community.
Report this comment
Sorry for all of the posts in a row. I am trying to catch up at the end of the day.
To: August B. #152 The MPO would disagree with your direct employee number by about 100 or so.
Report this comment
If there was a shovel at Rosemont
and for every Pro-Rosmont Comment the
shovel could remove a shovel full of dirt.
But at the same time it has to shovel a scoop back in with every Anti-Rosemont Comment how big of a mountain have they built today with Anti-Rosemont Comments?
Report this comment
To: Rachel P #190
I have many wonderful childhood memories of visting my aunt and uncle who lived in San Manuel. I had other family members who worked their as well but commuted from Tucson. That came to end for everyone when BHP closed the place down. As I grew older I remember ex workers from San Manuel who were retrained, some at government expense for new jobs outside of the mining field.
The benefits of using the Forest for this proposed Rosemont venture are outweighed by the negative impacts.
Report this comment
"Trust federal officials to make right decision on Rosemont mine"
Ha ha,ha!
I love these 'tongue-in-cheek' opinions!
Report this comment
180. Comment by Chris P. (miss_zoe_adler) — November 11,2009 @ 6:23PM
Ratings: -7 +0
""The Safford mine WAS opposed, hence why the permitting process took so long. Oddly enough, though, the people that actually LIVE in Safford weren't unanimously opposed. Much of Safford's economy has historically gotten a huge boost by Morenci. They understood that the mine means jobs and revenue filtered into the local economy.""
TUCSON IS NOT SAFFORD
Report this comment
Thanks for your support Arlene and keep up the good work with all your great posts! Your comments all make a lot of sense to me.
Report this comment
To: Chris P. # 178.
I think it was last week but I am not exactly sure when I saw it that "David Briggs" said he called the Sheriff because he felt threatened when someone posted information about him. He also had a prior editorial in the paper. Should the person you just posted about if it is the same person call the Sheriff on you? I am not implying in any way shape or form that I would advocate calling the Sheriff. I am just saying this is what was said last week or so.
Report this comment
To: Rachel P. #197
Same to you! The hubby has now demanded his time. Have a good night.
Report this comment
Ok Laura Skaer can you explain this to us.
Give up what we own until mine is finished?
“It will cost miners more to do business, but we don't mind doing so because this will help local communities and local economies.* We have no objections to paying a fair price for land and turning over our roads, buildings, and infrastructure to make lasting improvements to local communities after mining operations have ceased.”*
Laura Skaer quote
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/laura_skaer/
Report this comment
Sustainable? Phelps Dodge began operations in Morenci 127 years ago. Smaller companies worked the area for close to twenty years prior to that. I'd say that's sustainable. Rosemont PROJECTS a 20 year mine life span. You're not taking into consideration further exploration of all the patented and unpatented mining claims that are sure to yield more orebodies or an extension of the current known orebody. Trust me, it will be sustainable.
You have to mine where the minerals are. Why don't you people get that? How will it help our economy in any way to purchase all our copper from TRUE third world countries where the environment truly WILL be devastated since they are not even remotely regulated to the extent that companies in America are? Recycling is all well and good, and I'm all for it. However, copper wiring used for any electrical purposes must be of the purest, highest quality. Therefore, primarily NEW copper must be used for those purposes, and it has to come from somewhere. Why not here, where Tucson would benefit economically?
Please don't try to lay a guilt trip on me about my childrens' future. That is none of your concern, but since you brought it up, I will encourage them to do whatever they want to do, whether that's to go to college and work in the tourist industry/service sector, or in the information technologies, or even if they decide to become miners. It's up to them.
I have given serious consideration to what kind of country my children will be inheriting, and judging by the environmental/green movement that has recently run rampant, if things don't drastically change, we WILL be a third world country. This country needs to be independent of other countries for natural resources or our economy will collapse completely. Does "trade deficit" ring any bells? It's not like we can sustain this country economically based solely on the service or information sectors. We are blessed in this country to have an enormous amount of natural resources, and an enormous land mass. If people like you would allow this country to be self-sustaining, we could all have a future for our children to be proud of.
My husband can trace Phelps Dodge miners in his family back to the turn of the century. These are generations of men (and women) who have seen more "intrinsic wealth" and "natural beauty" than you can possibly imagine. I assure you, that there is an entire world of beauty inside the Earth, that only those who choose to embrace it will ever see.
Report this comment
Wow now Phelps Dodge workers are to be treated as Royalty?
Report this comment
#201, "I assure you, that there is an entire world of beauty inside the Earth, that only those who choose to embrace it will ever see."
Well, since I prefer to keep my feet firmly grounded on the Earth's surface, I guess I never will get to embrace that world of beauty you're talking about.
Report this comment
re: You have to mine where the minerals are. Why don't you people get that? <<
No, you don't have to. You can't mine where they are not. But that doesn't mean that everywhere they are needs to be mined.
Report this comment
#201, "We are blessed in this country to have an enormous amount of natural resources, and an enormous land mass. If people like you would allow this country to be self-sustaining, we could all have a future for our children to be proud of."
I agree with your premise of our country's need for increased self-sustainability, but the issue is that not all of our country's natural resources are renewable.
Report this comment
#170, I didn't think your video you posted looked right, so I conferred with someone who sees blasts every day, and was told that what you posted IS an irregular blast. The dust columns going into the sky, especially on the "zipper row" indicate that the holes were inadequately stemmed, and the energy in the explosives was wasted.
Rachel, if you haven't been in a mine, you really have no opinion. I am sorry, but you should have some frame of reference before making wild accusations. Morenci, ASARCO's Mission Complex and others offer very good tours.
You are correct in stating that not all natural resources are renewable. Not all can be recycled either, contrary to what some folks would have us believe. Copper is a necessity to modern life, whether you like it or not. As my husband challenged many on this board before he was banned (ostensibly for having strong opinions), tell me how you could go ONE day without copper, recycled or otherwise.
Report this comment
I miss Jeff P
he spoke his mind..
AzStarnet reinstate Jeff P
we would be over 300 comments by now with him around!
Report this comment
Thanks for the suggestion Crispy, but I have no desire to "be in a mine." But then again, I'm not crazy about caves, boats or airplanes either - guess it's just me.
I'm not sure what "wild accusations" you're referring to.
Thank you for agreeing with my point, "not all natural resources are renewable." That is my point. I will agree that in our modern world most people in our country and many people on the plant use copper products everyday.
However, digging up our copper reserves, thus permanently depleting our natural resources and polluting our environment, then shipping the copper off to China (thereby taking away from the self-sustainability you refer to) in order to produce cheap products (that are designed to fail and be frequently replaced so someone can make a buck), then are shipped back to the United States to be sold at Wal-mart is no way to maintain a sustainable quality of life in my opinion.
Report this comment
Not One Comment removed both sides have been fair to each other today!
Report this comment
I am referring to the wild accusations that you and others throw about regarding mines and miners. Do I really need to review them for you? The usual accusations have all shown up in this thread, with a few modified ones as well. None hold any merit whatsoever.
One orebody will not deplete all reserves, no matter what you say. Your throwing in the requisite "polluting our environment" line sums up that you have no real argument, you are only going along with the NIMBY mantra. Not all copper will get shipped to China, but a large amount does. It isn't given away, it is sold. The profits return to not only the company shareholders, but the employees, contractors, the local businesses where the money is spent, taxes paid, and so forth. Money is not a closed loop, it flows freely in a functional economy.
Seeing as "Green" groups have done so much damage to American manufacturing and business in general, you may wish to rethink your positions before espousing your beliefs in a self-sustaining economy.
People who consider virtually everything to be "pollution" are very much to blame for our horribly imbalanced economic situation, as I have pointed out before. If you align with the "Green" groups, then you are a proponent of the shoddily made imported goods that you claim to be against.
If you support a return to common sense environmental regulations and an eradication of the frivolous lawsuits endlessly filed by environmental groups, then you can rightfully claim to support American manufacturing.
Report this comment
#209
I agree wholeheartedly with you. Both sides deserve accolades for that today.
Report this comment
lol lets go back to the stone age and live in a cave, look the is mines comming, deal with it.
Great posts Chris P
Report this comment
Rachel and Greg click on the link in your 56 comment - then click on the comments and read pro Rosemont comments 401 and 414. These comments were directed at Robert mntcats, if any one should call the Sheriffs Department and make a report, it should be Robert.
Report this comment
hummm I just read on yahoo.com that Arizona was one of 10 states that were facing a major financial crisis......but hey lets prevent a bunch of jobs and several sources of revenue
Report this comment
Speaking of Caves
Rosemont owns private property and if they want to dig a cave or hole in it fine but why do they want a bailout and but their Cave tailings on public property?
Report this comment
but or put,I already live in a cave
with a small pc powered by some coal they screwed the reservation out of, waiting for my small copper allotment from China
lol don't mind me i am copper deprived if you ask some of the people on here...
Report this comment
[This comment has been removed]
#207 Greg, I guess I didn't miss him as I didn't even realize he was gone. Now that I know that he's gone, I can honestly say, I don't miss him.
Report this comment
#216, you might want to see exactly what the Hopi and Navajo tribal leadership thinks of the environmentalists sticking their noses into the reservation coal business. Both tribes have told the environmental groups that they have worn out their welcome on the reservations.
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/09/coal_conflict_hopi_navajo_trib.html
You can only do so much damage to someone's livelihood before they start to get irritated.
Report this comment
Smoke and clouds Chris, no one has ever threatened you.
Report this comment
What Joe is making reference to is when Thomas (Copperhead)made reference to the possibility that someone may take a few pot shots at me. I did find that to be a very foolish statement. Didn't frighten me but then again I realize to what extremes mining companies and their supporters will go to furthur their goals. I saw that in 1983 when I was arrested in Morenci. So a slanted threat is just that, foolish.
Report this comment
[This comment has been removed]
218
He had a Clint Eastwood way about him,
He would say
"Do you feel lucky Anti-Rosemont punk?"
when you ban someone their reputation grows larger then life!
Report this comment
Most of the Augusta supporters know where I live and I'm not difficult to find. It does worry me when I go to the National Forest and have Augusta's private security force follow me around through the forest roads though.
Report this comment
You are right, Joe. You never threatened ME. But you do know what I'm talking about, don't you?
Robert, I believe that my explanation of Thomas C's post clearly stated "EXTREME ENVIRONMENTALISTS", did it not?
So, Robert, were you "arrested" by Phelps Dodge Security or someone going to work? Supposing that you actually were arrested by the Greenlee County Sheriff's Office or DPS, it would have been for BREAKING THE LAW, just like anyone else. The same as someone who would run a red light, breaking the law is breaking the law.
R 225
Nice side of the mouth personal attack zoe, that just cost what little respect I had for you. I was arrested with seven other people when the mine reopened after the ten day shutdown. We lost to PD and your family benifited from the Union fights that went on in previous years, I stayed out and honored the strike and the workers who had been there for generations. I have really made a decision to not report anyone but you are getting rather "personal"....OH yes PD SECURITY was hiding behind the fence, they left it up to the National Guard and the thousand highway patrol, Greenlee County sheriffs and Pinal County backup. Oh yes, don't forget the undercover group who had the supercomputer at the UofAz.
Report this comment
219
What does environmentalists kicked off reservation have to do with me?
I feel they were screwed out of coal, it is my opinion.
Report this comment
As far as breaking the law Zoe, tell that to the parents of the 16 year old that was shot by the highway patrol officers in Safford while they were "detaining"him for questioning. They "accidentally shot him in the neck" while they said he was NOT resisting arrest. I think their were three of them with a 16 yr old. Az had to pay for that one.
Report this comment
Zoe, you have as much as stated I "invented my persona" about Morenci. I lived on Agavae and there are still people there who remember the name, would you like to learn ore about what happens when the Arizona Government works in tandem with a copper company in Arizona.????
Report this comment
When I left Morenci, my wife accidentally let it slip to my mother that I had been arrested with felony charges in Morenci. Upon arrival at our new town I called my mother and spoke with her for an hour trying to explain there was nothing to worry about. My mother died that night in her sleep Zoe so cut the cr*p about how the Nasty strikers were beating up on poor poor PD , a lot of us paid a lot to stand our ground then and what makes you think we will back off now?
Report this comment
There was no "personal attack", Robert. And, as a side note, this is the third time in as many weeks you've removed your "respect" for me.
You have failed consistently to give any details as to your involvement in the strike, relying only on "I was there", which bears little credibility in the world. Forgive me for saying this, but many of your stories seem to have been taken verbatim from "Copper Crucible" and "Holding the Line". At any rate, if you were there along with seven others AFTER the ten-day "cooling off" period, you were there illegally. Trespassing is trespassing. Go to work or get off the property, simple concept.
My family has only benefited from the strike in that the unions are gone forever. We take care of our children and ourselves rather than pay union dues.
Report this comment
I listened to this in 1983 when the people were being bussed in by the comapnay to break the strike.
excuses
We need the jobs
I'm feeding my familay
Someone has to do it
You do't kno how tough it is out there
They have the right to have no union, its a right to work state.
I've got your job sucker!!!
We listened to it all..
Sounds familiar to what I hear now.
Report this comment
I was arrested in my living room. Make your own excuses, you benefited from what the unions fought for with decades worth of work. If ytou want to disregard that so be it. Just never attack me again by an insinuation that I am lying about 1983.
Report this comment
Laura Skaer you don't have an appreciation of anything except money.
Trust who? Government officials? Nonsense.
Damages from a big open pit copper mine cannot be mitigated. The negative impact the mine would have on nearby privately owned real estate values cannot be reversed. The wildlife populations endemic to the area that would be lost cannot be replaced.
The Rosemont Mine is a terrible idea that cannot be allowed to go forward.
STOP THIS MISBEGOTTEN IDEA!
Report this comment
Also don't try to convince me how much I should TRUST the copper mines. You have no idea.
Report this comment
As a last comment, NONE of the eight ever got to trial. ALL the charges were trumped up and false. IT was to make it look as if there was a disturbance that never happened, somewhat similar to what was tried in Patagonia at one of the Rosemont/Augusta Forest Service Meetings.
Report this comment
You responded before I finished typing my last post, for this I apologize.
After 26 years, isn't it time to admit that you lost?
The strikers beat up on themselves through sheer greed. Nobody else was the aggressor, the innocent men and women trying to feed their families were the victims. The strikers were their own worst enemy.
I'll take your story at face value, as there is nothing to plausibly confirm nor deny any of it.
Report this comment
Hatred, extreme hatred, sounds pretty radical.
I can't think of one person in my life that I hate or have hated. Tell your husband I wish him serenity and peace.
Report this comment
Hey Robert, know this you are appreciated and admired. Also be careful, the remarks made the other night started after you posted your video. They worried me then and more so now.
Thanks again for all you do and have done.
Sweet Dreams
Report this comment
Goodnight all
sweet dreams
Report this comment
Nancy,
Where is the Mineral King mine. I've never heard of it. And you're wrong about the Safford mine. It was opposed by environmentalists.
Report this comment
Keep voicing your opinion Rosemont supporters! Lets put people back to work. Open this mine
Report this comment
#186 Arlene,
So what new mine are those folks supporting?? Can you give examples where the Sierra Club, Earth First, Center for Bio Diversity, and others have supported a new mining proposal?
Representative Giffords says she's for responsible mining, but co-sponsoring legislation to close all public lands in Pima County to new mining is anti-mining. Considering new mines on a case-by-case basis could not be considered anti-mining. So just because she's ok with Freeport expanding now and then doesn't mean she's pro-mining. She's being politically savvy.
Report this comment
[This comment has been removed]
That comment had no bearing on the story or the mining project. It was a jab plain and simple. Post #117 was meant as an insult.
Such a post was akin to making fun of posters because of poor grammer or spelling. Even well educated people make mistakes when typing fast, so it's pretty cheap to call people on it.
I have seen other Rosemont stories where people on your side of the issue write post after post. There's nothing wrong with that - we all can't be on here all the time.
And regarding the question someone asked if I've been to the meetings; yes I've been to many them. I've actually been at the meetings when Asarco owned the property and tried to open the mine (and people dressed as birds were interrupting the meetings). I'm very familiar with the issue and I grew up in the area.
Report this comment
Nice posts #210.
As long as we import more copper than we export, we are dependent on foreign copper.
So what if I, an Arizonan, bought all of Rosemont's copper, then sold it all to China. But then changed my mind and decided that I needed that amount of copper and bought the same amount again (but from Africa) and used it here to make stuff? Did the USA not benefit from the copper? It's all indistinguishable "Cu" with the same properties and value. Now that's an unrealistic scenario, but when you look the real scale of the copper market, with thousands and thousands of copper buyers (and sellers), you can see that it's very difficult to control or forecast where each pound will go. But one thing is for certain, the USA will import about 40% of its copper consumption each year. And even more now that everybody wants a Prius (which uses a lot more copper than similar sized conventional cars).
I'm glad that somebody admitted that they weren't against mining per se, but that they just want it done someplace else. I hear that a lot, and I think it's the sentiment of most anti-Rosemont folks. So it's really not about the protecting the earth, it's about protecting your view (and our precious water!). They are two different things...
Do you not agree that there is a greater burden on the environment and mankind when minerals are mined outside the first world? Don't you want a cleaner economy? Don't you want to stop exporting the burden created by your lifestyle? If you want both, create a law that says that Americans can only consume 60% of copper currently demanded in 2008 (like your allies propose capping greenhouse gas emissions). And make a law freezing the amount of water that can be pumped. That's a good idea too, right? If you want to ban mining in every backyard (or any pristine, unique area) change the federal mining and environmental laws. Use the system our Forefathers created. Don't demand the government make an exception and ignore the laws and process in this case. Because if we set the precedent that they can ignore the laws, none of us, on any side of this issue, can be protected from the mob which can scream the loudest. We are adults and we have created the rules - if we don't like them, we need to cowboy up and change them
I really feel sorry for the regulators - they're between a rock and a hard place; The businesses who are following the law and who will sue if they are discriminated against, and the well-meaning opposition who will sue them if they allow the project to continue. Their only solace was that the "no action" case had no legal grounds, but that may be taken away by fiat...
Report this comment
Lost your job yet?
Keep buying that china crap, hiring illegal’s to do your labor, using that self checkout lanes and crossing picket lines. You too will soon be one who is out of work or supporting your out of work 25 to 35 year old child!
I see programmers, accountants; engineers are being acquired for 1/3 or less the pay of US born professionals. In India you can become an engineer for less than $5000 and through H1Bs work in America for $35,000 a year or less plus a studio apartment to live in. Our corporations will save between $100,000 and $150,000 a year. Will it reduce the cost of the bridge or car? No it won't it will enrich the top 1% even more. Welcome to the real new Mexico where the rich get richer and the poor get um well who cares what the poor get say the corporations. They say let the social services pick up the tab for the working poor! They can get food stamps, wic, free emergency room services and free pre-natal care so why should we provide health benefits or high wages. Hell lets extend that health care for illegal’s since that saves us 30% more over what we pay Americans!
I hate unions and socialism but dam it there needs to be a way to check and balance the greed and theft perpetrated on the middle class while ensuring a minimum quality of life for the working poorest citizens!
There is a new term in corporate America and it is called KT (Knowledge Transfer) and it is quite simple and effective. Just take a trained qualified professional and put him in charge of a team of H1B professionals. Once they are up to speed invent a project to put your $200,000 plus a year professional on and let that project expire then you can lay him off because you have nothing new for him to work on and guess what you have 5 to 7 of his trained employees filling the positions at less than 1/5th the cost! We aren’t outsourcing any longer we are in sourcing. And soon we will have a new and better ability to compete globally. I even went to a seminar that teaches corporations how to not hire American professional applicants while still qualifying to hire H1B visa professionals!
Possibly we can out source the management at GM and generate more wealth for the upper 1% of America. After all those managers from India or China not only work for less they have valuable experience working with less! Wall Street can finally pull out all the stops as there will be much more liquidity to invest with! Think about it, the only thing we export now is investment instruments, treasury notes (our debt), garbage and recycling. With all the low paid Americans we can finally compete in this tough Global market! The American (corporate) dream finally realized!
Some of my rant is satire, but it is not too far from reality either!
Report this comment
175. Comment by ken p. (wellnow)
Buddy boy, the forst part of your post is borderline slander.
The second part on the water is just pain stupid. Here I will cut and paste from the POO right here.
2.8.3 Production Plan
The feasibility study and preliminary design for the Rosemont Project indicate that the water requirements
are approximately 5,000 af per year with a peak delivery volume of 5,000 gpm. The wellfield and pipeline
for the water supply system will be designed to accommodate both the peak delivery rate and the total
annual supply requirement. The wellfield will have excess capacity so that it can meet the 5,000 gpm
production requirement, while maintaining at least one production well in reserve.
Rosemont has acquired a 53-ac parcel along Santa Rita Road northwest of the Santa Rita Experimental Range.
Now stop you scare tactic BS adn misinformation.
Report this comment
Following is another quote by Laura Skaer concerning
Gale Norton, President-elect Bush's choice to head the Interior Department. Gale Norton once suggested that government recognize property owners' ``right to pollute'' and that they be compensated for losses when forced to protect the environment.
Laura Skaer's quote was;
``She will bring a balanced approach ... to multiple use management of federal public lands,'' said Laura Skaer, executive director of the Northwest Mining Association, a trade group based in Spokane, Wash
Report this comment
A mining reform measure passed the House 244-166 in 2007, but failed to make it out of a Senate committee. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., would have forced the hard-rock mining industry to pay royalties on minerals extracted from public lands and would have put new environmental controls on mining.
Robert Comer, regional solicitor for the Interior Department based in Denver, said there will be renewed interest in a 1999 legal opinion that gave the Interior Department the right to veto any mining proposal that causes substantial environmental harm
The opinion rendered by John Leshy, the Interior Department's top lawyer during the Clinton administration, was later abandoned by the Bush administration
Leshy, now a member of Obama's Interior Department transition team, based the opinion on his interpretation of a 1976 federal law that directed the Interior secretary to prevent "unnecessary or undue degradation" of the public lands from all activities, including hard-rock mining.
"It's an important standard that's been misapplied by the courts and the agencies, and there needs to be discipline in implementing the standard," Comer said.
Skaer said she thinks mining opponents will use the standard as a tool to stop mine projects over the next four years.
Report this comment
Good point, 1.6 million acre feet is on a completely different scale - it's greatly beyond the amount required by even a conventional mine. Ken has his facts mixed up somewhere.
If you use the approximately 5,000 af value as in the POO, Ken's amount would be used in 320 years, not 10 years.
Report this comment
If Skaer thinks we should have so much trust why does she say they are wrong when they go against the mining companies? Are they only to be trusted when they side with the mining companies. Following is information on a lawsuit filed:
Oct 23, 2009
ELKO, Nev. (AP) -- Conservationists and tribal leaders in Nevada have joined a lawsuit challenging two U.S. mining regulations that they say provide illegal subsidies to the mining industry and result in serious damage to the environment.
The suit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. against the U.S. Interior Department and U.S. Agriculture Department now includes the Western Shoshone Defense Project and Reno-based Great Basin Resource Watch. Part of the lawsuit involves reforms that were made under the Clinton administration then reversed under the Bush administration.
"These rules read as if they were written by the mining industry, not the government regulators supposedly entrusted with the care of the public's lands," said Roger Flynn, a lawyer for the lead plaintiff, the Western Mining Action Project.
The mining industry contends the lawsuit is without merit, said Laura Skaer, executive director of the Northwest Mining Association.
One of the challenges is aimed at action taken by the Bush administration in overturning an opinion former Interior Solicitor John Leshy issued under the previous Clinton administration regarding sites for mills, waste rock dumps and tailings ponds.
The other issue is whether mines should pay fair market value to locate facilities on public land not protected by valid mining and mill-site claims.
"We believe they are wrong in their interpretation of the mining law," Skaer told the Elko Daily Free Press. "Leshy's mill-site opinion was clearly erroneous. All the Bush administration did was right that wrong."
Report this comment
Following are excerpts in testimony given by Skaer before Congress Committee in 2005. She testifies the NEPA process is "burdensome":
Therefore, it is imperative that the NEPA process be reviewed and reformed to remove
inappropriate barriers to domestic mineral activity without sacrificing environmental protection.
NWMA believes that reforming the NEPA process and streamlining the permitting system are
critical to improving the competitiveness of the domestic mining industry.
The NEPA process, the U.S. permitting system, restricted access to mineral deposits and the
inability to secure land tenure has made mineral development and production difficult, time
consuming, costly and in some cases, impossible.
The permitting process is cumbersome, complex, and unpredictable because it
requires cooperation among many stakeholders and compliance with dozens of
regulations for a single mine.
We are focusing our testimony today on three issues that must be addressed if the United States
is going to be competitive in attracting mineral investment dollars, which are the foundation for
the high paying direct and indirect jobs provided by the U.S. mining industry:
(1) The need to reform the burdensome National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process,
and stream the U.S. permitting system to provide certainty and eliminate unreasonable
delays;
(2) Access to mineral deposits on federal lands and security of land tenure for those deposits
and ancillary facilities;
(3) Restructure the claim maintenance or holding fee to encourage exploration.
Report this comment
[This comment has been removed]
Following is Skaers quote concerningthe NEPA process, remember this is the lady who wrote the article in the newspaper we are commenting on:
NEPA is no longer about the environment. It is no longer the planning tool it was designed to
be. It has become THE TOOL used by obstructionist groups who oppose responsible and
lawful mineral development on federal public lands; a project-killing, job-killing, community killing
tool.
Report this comment
#252 - The Navajo and Hopi tribes have told environmental groups that their mining is none of the environmentalists' business.
Convenient how you neglect that side of the story, isn't it?
Not everyone falls for the blatant lies told by environmental zealots.
Report this comment
I am asking the pro-rosemont people to stop with the personal attacks against me. Post whatever you wish about the proposed open pit mine and if I post false information, disprove it . I am asking that you refrain from trying to smear me. I will leave you alone, you leave me alone.
Report this comment
[This comment has been removed]
250. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)
That bill goes through the4 Senate, domestic mining will leave the U.S. for good. Even Senator Reid is smart enough to understand that.
That bill is designed to make the costs of mineral exploration and mining in the U.S. on federal grounds prohibitively expensive and several elitist green NGOs helpt Rahall write it in that manner. Sure we can pass it but don't whine when we see third world nations selling out and the environment truely suffering. That is what short sightedness brings.
Report this comment
Robert, when YOU discontinue "personal attacks", then you can talk. You treat everyone who doesn't support your views as some kind of second or third class citizen, while glorifying violent strikes and environmental groups bending the laws to suit their own purposes.
Your thinly veiled insults hurled at myself and others should indicate that you have no pedestal to stand upon.
I am sorry that people dislike you, but you have done that to yourself. When you put yourself in a public position, you are open to public opinion.
Report this comment
I have to ask, didn't the StarNet management clearly state that the frivolous reporting of posts would stop? I hope that this applies to everyone, and not just a select few.
Report this comment
Leave me alone with the attacks zoe
Report this comment
Laura is saying that if they follow the law and apply the best science, trust them as the professionals chosen to represent us. If they don't follow the law, or grossly misapply it, that's when you have to question them. If they tell Rosemont, "go ahead and start building the mill and start stripping, we don't need any plans from you - we don't care what you do to with regard to water, light pollution or air quality". That's when you take on the system.
And what you're highlighting is how the process works - if you feel the system is broke you appeal to Congress! You don't just ignore the rules and let officials bend or ignore the law! That's what Laura is doing in the quotes above; she's giving testimony before Congress, asking them to amend parts of the law! It’s her job to represent the best interest of mining. It’s the job of your groups to do the same (using the process).
Report this comment
If I had the ability I would report more of you latest attacks but I hit the limit at three, now post whatever comments you have but leave me be.
#255
Yes, that's what miners believe. And it's Laura's job to communicate that to Congress so that they will consider changes to the law. It's the job of the other NGOs to argue the opposite before Congress... I'm sure if you talked with her, she would explain that. I'm sure she has plenty more studies which explain her position in more detail on the NWMA website. It's no secret.
Report this comment
Thank you Mark, that is what we are doing, appealing to Congress, the Court System and any Government official we think has any authority over the planned area. So far almost every official has came out in oppostion to the mine and we have shown some beaurecrats things about their departments they were unaware of.
Report this comment
As I said, I am done with this childishness.
Robert, you have won this round. Not through merit, but through making me tired of dealing with you. If you wish to be the only voice allowed on the StarNet forums, and if you choose to gain this goal through less than honest means, that is your prerogative.
You are showing your true colors for the public to scrutinize.
Have a nice day.
Report this comment
[This comment has been removed]
R 268
"grow up",
Is this aother example of a personal attack. I have asked you to leave me be and stick to the issues. All I did was post other speeches she gave and other quotes, I "attacked her nowhere". The truth was in her words.
Words such as " elitist stance", "unconscionable", "convict you" "poverty alive and well" "criminal" are examples of rhetoric used to inflame, not inform.
Report this comment
No your side is not Robert. The opposition is trying to use every loophole and stall tactic possible. Why not wait and see what the government says after they review the first plan (and not last) plan. They may just see it your way and make drastic changes which may make their project unprofitable.
What the public doesn't need is all the misinformation thrown out (like they're going to use 160,000 acre-feet of water per year) - that's just trying to scare people so they will pressure our representatives to change the process midstream.
You’re attacking Laura for testifying before Congress about the parts of the laws that miners feel are being abused and/or are doing on good but waste money. But she’s using the process to change the laws, not asking them to change the laws to any project currently locked into that process...
Report this comment
H.R. 699, the Hard Rock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009, like its predecessor H.R. 2262, was written by anti-mining and environmental extremist groups, whose goal is to ban all mining activities in the United States. If this bill ever becomes law, it will accomplish its goal by increasing the risks and costs of doing business to a point that all mining companies will take their business to foreign countries just like the steel, textile and other heavy industry that once formed the backbone of our nation's economy.
Report this comment
And the cry will go out in the land "why are they exporting all of our jobs?".
Call centers and retirement homes cannot sustain an economy, you have to make real things too...
Report this comment
269. Comment by robert h. (mntncats)
Truth hurts doesn't it. However you cannot change to outcome. NIMBYism and hard core environmentalism are elitist stances and history is already judging them as such. To impede job creation at the Rosemont Mine in favor of these NIMBY stances is unconscionable and in low income areas with few job opportunities like Amado, Tubac, Patagonia and Nogales, the halting of a project such as the Rosemont Mine does in fact help keep poverty in those areas alive and well. The fact that you cannot face these facts amazes me. You should be heralding these ultimate results if you are sucessful and not trying to hide them.
Report this comment
Locking up access to our nation's resources is not sustainable, nor is it environmentally or socially responsible.
It fails to recognize that poverty, not development is the worst polluter.
It is also arrogant, because it assumes that future generations would make the same choices as we would.
Furthermore, it exports the negative impacts resulting from our consumption to less developed nations of the world, which are unable to effectively deal with these impacts.
Report this comment
274 Locking up access to our nation's resources is not sustainable, nor is it environmentally or socially responsible.
It is his Opinion No Facts!
274 It fails to recognize that poverty, not development is the worst polluter.
It is his Opinion No Facts because in our sad new world if quoted facts on this one we could call him Racist!
274 It is also arrogant, because it assumes that future generations would make the same choices as we would.
If he is able to assume then we can too,
and assume he does not know what he is talking about!
274 Furthermore, it exports the negative impacts resulting from our consumption to less developed nations of the world, which are unable to effectively deal with these impacts.
In his mind this means that we are richer Nation and will gladly pay more tax to deal with industry cleanup!
Report this comment
274 Furthermore, it exports the negative impacts resulting from our consumption to less developed nations of the world, which are unable to effectively deal with these impacts.
In his mind this means that we are richer Nation and will gladly pay more tax to deal with industry cleanup!
So in response to this one to be fair
to Chris J most of us think we are a Rich Nation!
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/07/Kotlikoff.pdf
Report this comment
Forgive me for jumping in here, especally at this late date, but I can't just watch any longer.
I've been watching these threads for quite some time, and honestly, I couldn't possibly be persuaded to join any opposition to the proposed Rosemont mine from what I've seen of the opposition. The bullying behavior exhibited by some is just terrible and the lying is beyond comprhension.
I'm just an observer here, but I see no legitimate reason to stop this mine's opening. Tucson and Arizona need quality jobs made availabel to the citizens.
Give the professionals a chance to do the jobs that we as taxpayers pay them to do, it is what they are here for.
Report this comment
277
Give the professionals a chance to do the jobs that we as taxpayers pay them to do, it is what they are here for.
Could you give us the names of these
professionals and contact info because as
taxpayers we should be able to express our taxpayer view to them, and may of missed one or two that you know of!
Report this comment
I thought Public Opinion was part of the permitting process for mines 277?
Are you asking that we give up that right?
And if you are asking us to give up our right are you in anyway in the Mine Industry?
Report this comment
#275
I can't speak for Horquilla, but I've been to Africa, Asia, the South Pacific, Europe and throughout North America. What I have seen during those travels hasn't conflicted with what has been well documented by organizations on both sides of the issue: impoverished nations do pollute more. And to be specific about the mining side, most national (and a few international) mining companies pay no heed to first-world environmental, safety and social standards. So it makes sense to support the large operators who maintain first world standards regardless of location. And it's good to support new projects located in first-world nations, where the highest standards are maintained. It is not opinion - it is an indisputable fact that if we rely on importing all of our metal needs, there is a greater burden on the environment. Let me be clear: supporting the best operators doesn't remove all impacts, but it keeps them at their smallest possible size. The only way to remove all impacts from mining (barring heritage sites, which will take long time management) is to stop mining all together.
If we let our current mines deplete their copper reserves without investing in new reserves (just because we can't mine in any backyard not to mention the pristine, unique areas which cover the rest of our fine nation), then the cost of living in the USA will explode because we'll have to import all of our raw materials. And without generating any new wealth out of the ground, we'll export all of our current wealth to our suppliers. But I suspect before it would come to that, sensible Americans would wake up and begin to tolerate a few holes in the ground.
Goodnight all, have fun!
Report this comment
#276
"
**274 wrote "Furthermore, it exports the negative impacts resulting from our consumption to less developed nations of the world, which are unable to effectively deal with these impacts." **
In his mind this means that we are richer Nation and will gladly pay more tax to deal with industry cleanup!"
Greg, I believe what he is saying is that in America we have laws which require polluters to clean up their messes (Superfund money comes mostly from taxes on industry, not independent citizens). And we have more efficient and environmentally friendly technology/techniques and highly skilled employees to apply them, neither of which are available in 3rd world nations. And we have numerous government, NGO and citizens watching over our shoulders (monitoring our radio transmission, touring our sites, auditing our books, doing white-glove inspections, etc.).
In 3rd world nations, unscrupulous operators pay bribes, and the irresponsible officials look the other way with no regard to the future impact to their country or countrymen - just to make a buck because that's how their governments work (terrible heath, safety, environmental, labor and social costs - most of which will be avoided here in the USA).
I'm pretty sure that's what he means when he says less developed nations are unable to effectively deal with the impacts of bad mining practices.
Horquilla, am I correct?
Report this comment
#278 & #279
I think it's best to wait for their report before you try to contact random government personnel. Once you read the report, you can express just what parts of their conclusion that you disagree with. You're not giving up your right to speak. It will save you and them time if you are informed as to what you disagree with them about. Once you know, you can express what concerns you have that they have ignored or haven't fully addressed. They haven't written their report yet, so we don't know how they feel about the merits of the Rosemont project.
Also, once the report is released, we all will know who it is we need to contact to express our concerns. Until the report is written, #277 can't answer your questions.
Report this comment
280. Comment by Mark B. (minador)
Ever been to Tanzania? That is one interesting country.
Report this comment
I was very close to going this past summer - I flew over it twice! It looks interesting!
Report this comment