Rosemont Mine EIS

[Jeffshadows]

For those following what's shaping up for the Santa Ritas by way of the mining operation that wants to come to town, the Forest Service is planning on preparing an Environmental Impact Statement and wants your input. The project notice of intent is available on the FS website and I've also attached it to this posting:

rosemont-noi-02282008.pdf

USFS - Rosemont Mine Notice of Intent

(44.97 KiB) Downloaded 217 times

I can't make any of the meetings, but I wish I could because we need as many people like us there as possible to show that opposition to the mine will not pass away with the contingent of retired folks in Green Valley that are championing the cause. No offense meant in what I just said, because I've heard that their new strategy is to wait a few more years until the "Political climate might be more favorable" (What else could they mean by that statement?) I know this is a heated topic, and I'm not advocating bad behavior or fanaticism; I just think we are a community that needs to be heard on these issues, once in a while...

Anyway, for those who can get out there, here's the meeting schedule:
1. March 18, 2008, Pima Community College Desert Vista Campus, 5901 South Calle Santa Cruz, Tucson, Arizona. 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
2. March 19, 2008, Canoa Hills Recreation Center, 3660 South Camino del Sol, Green Valley, Arizona, 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
3. March 20, 2008, Patagonia Union High School, Highway 82, Patagonia, Arizona, 6:00 p.m.- 8:00 p.m

The FS is planning another meeting for the Vail area; date, time, and location TBD. If you can't make it please take a few minutes and do like I did - send your comments on the proposal in by one of these channels:
• Mail comments to Team Leader, Rosemont Copper Project, Coronado National Forest, 300 W. Congress St., Tucson, Arizona 85701
• FAX comments to (520) 388–8305, ATTN: Rosemont Team Leader
• Or email to comments-southwestern-coronado@fs.fed.us

If you feel the mine is a good idea and have come up with a novel solution to the groundwater issue (among other things) you should comment, as well. This is a democracy, after all!

[Jeffshadows]

Thank goodness for Chuck Huckleberry...for once! ;)

[JimmyLyding]

I've been to most of the copper mines in the southwest courtesy of my former job, and even a few in northern Mexico. They were great for business, but tragic in so many ways. I don't want an open sore on the eastern flank of the Santa Ritas that can be seen from space.
If approved this project will be bad for:
Water, which southern Arizona does not have lot of
Wildlife
The people who live in the area
There will be a tremendous amount of pollution. Don't believe me? Visit Globe, Green Valley or Ajo

This is a losing proposition for everyone except the foreign corporation that wants to profit off of our beautiful Santa Ritas

[azbackpackr]

On the pollution topic, I know these mines affect ground water, surface water and they secrete various poisons. If I'm not mistaken, they also cause some air pollution? Anyone know the nature of this air pollution? Obviously, there is going to be some dust/particulate matter, but is there also more than dust?

I know someone who works at the copper mine in Morenci--has supported his family on it for years, but even he is against the new mines.

[Jeffshadows]

I think the air pollution issue was primarily a dust problem. Never mind the huge eyesore and swath of destruction they will leave when they're done, imaging what this will do to our groundwater and how much groundwater it will require. We already don't have enough to continue to operate the Tucson metro...

[dysfunction]

I'd imagine the constantly running massive dump trucks, loaders, etc would significantly add to a zero level air pollution. I really should have taken some pics of the mines out by Clifton when we went up to Baldy

[Jeffshadows]

On a related topic...
http://uanews.org/node/29801

[JimmyLyding]

Here's the latest from the Phoenix fishwrap:

<<Research professor Lee McPheters says the proposed Rosemont Copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains could bring in as many visitors as it might drive away.
Rosemont Copper paid for the study...>>

"Honey, let's take the kids down to Tucson so we can see that mine!"

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... ne-ON.html

TUCSON - An Arizona State University economist says a proposed copper mine near Tucson would not have a major effect on tourism.

Research professor Lee McPheters says the proposed Rosemont Copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains could bring in as many visitors as it might drive away.

Rosemont Copper paid for the study, which was done for the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources.

McPheters says copper mining provides a basic economic activity that brings in outside money and supports retail, banking and other businesses.

He says his study looked at jobs, income and government revenue from the mining, and was not mandated to look at negatives.

The Coronado National Forest is to release a draft environmental impact statement on the mine this spring.

[writelots]

He says his study looked at jobs, income and government revenue from the mining, and was not mandated to look at negatives

huh. I thought that the tenets of academic research would have mandated that you consider all variables, good or bad, before you publish results... I mean, how would it look if a drug company said "this will make you thinner" and failed to examine that it would also cause heart failure or liver disease???

I've never been so happy I chose UofA over ASU. Not that it would never happen at Tucson - it just didn't happen at Tucson this time!

[big_load]

thought that the tenets of academic research would have mandated that you consider all variables, good or bad, before you publish results..

That's what you do if you're not funded by somebody with an axe to grind.

[Jeffshadows]

thought that the tenets of academic research would have mandated that you consider all variables, good or bad, before you publish results..

That's what you do if you're not funded by somebody with an axe to grind.

Note that this study was not peer-reviewed. This reminds me of the "science" that the rational design nutjobs got some professors at major institutions to "publish."

[writelots]

I guess, though, that the there are two crimes here - that committed by the researcher in tailoring his process to a biased funding source, and that committed by the newspaper who chose to publish the findings without the caveat of "this is complete bull***"

You know, sometimes I want to go back to the days when no one really ever knew what was going on. The land was still getting raped three ways from Tuesday, and there was still nothing we could really do about it. I just didn't spend my days banging my head against ...

[Jeffshadows]

A highly complex, hotly debated mining bill would limit rulemaking authority of the state's environmental agency and create an industry-dominated council to advise state agencies.

The bill would grant a one-shot exemption to a long-standing state ban on transfer of groundwater between basins, to allow water cleanup at a Bisbee-area mine. The ban exists to prevent one basin's water from being exploited by another area of the state.

The proposal also allows companies to take cleaned-up, formerly polluted groundwater and put it in artificial lakes, a practice now forbidden by state law.

The bill is aimed at streamlining and speeding the permitting of mines without weakening environmental rules, its backers say. It's geared toward helping the mining industry continue to bring jobs to Arizona during the economic downturn, they say.

With Arizona producing 66 percent of the United States' copper supply, it's important that permitting of a mine not take 13 years, as it did for Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold's mine in Safford, lobbyist Lyn White said.

"That is 13 years of costs when we could have been bringing jobs to the site," said White, speaking for the Arizona Mining Association and for Freeport McMoRan, where she works as director of government relations.

Environmentalists counter that it would weaken protection for efficiency's sake. They're worried about the exemptions from groundwater laws. And they say it will be hard to streamline processing of mining permits by state agencies when their staffs are being slashed by budget cuts.

"It's enormous. I know just enough about it to know it has a lot of red flags," said Rep. Nancy Young Wright, a Tucson Democrat who opposes the bill.

The bill passed the House 35-20 on March 23. A Senate committee hearing isn't scheduled, but backers hope to get one next week.

During a House hearing last month, White cited a report from industry economist George Leaming that found the mining industry paid more than $140 million in tax revenues in 2008 to county and state governments and school districts in Arizona. More than 11,200 people work in mining in this state at an average salary of $60,000 salary, White said.

The bill would change regulations to "protect the environment while preserving jobs," said Sydney Hay, Arizona Mining Association president. "Every agency that regulates the mining industry has been involved in this project, and they are all supportive."

Environmentalists don't like the limits on state rule-making, which would keep them from being stricter than federal rules.

"We fail to understand why the Arizona Legislature has so little regard for the resources of the state that it wouldn't allow for the strongest possible protections," said Sandy Bahr, a Sierra Club lobbyist in Arizona. "What if local conditions warrant additional protections?"

Typically, copper prices affect when mines open far more than regulations do, Bahr testified at the House hearing, adding, "The companies have been able to move forward, meet the requirements and still make a tidy profit."

Nancy Freeman, director of the Green Valley-based Groundwater Awareness League, said she's concerned that limits on state rules could make it hard or impossible to pull off cleanups, such as one under way to remove sulfates from the Freeport-owned Sierrita Mine near Green Valley. Sulfates aren't federally regulated, hazardous pollutants.

But Rep. Russell Jones, R-Yuma, the bill's sponsor, said he doesn't want to give state agencies "unbridled free rein." If the agencies want Arizona's rules to be stricter than federal rules, they need to justify it to the Legislature, he said.

In other news - AZ state lawmakers pass a bill to teach children that the Earth is indeed flat...

[writelots]

So - the state legislature is proposing a bill which limits the power of the state legislature to ... well, make and enforce rules? Or is it that the bill is trying to circumvent the rules made by previous bills? A special council to advise state agencies that is dominated by members of the industry it is supposed to regulate?

What's next - letting the criminals run the prison?

Gawd, I love Arizona.

[JimmyLyding]

I want to give a resounding "Thank You!" to all of the Arizonans who voted for candidates from a certain political party.

[nonot]

Political Party? Why even vote, what's the difference between one scumbag liar and another scumbag liar?

Oh right, I forget, some have the illusion of freedom. That may have been true once upon a time...

[azbackpackr]

"Freedom" is a catch-all term which has so many meanings it has become meaningless. Both parties use the term to mean totally different things.

[Jeffshadows]

The same kinds of cars that displayed 'W' stickers had "Hillary" stickers during the last election...Mercedes SUV's, etc. All any of them want is more resources and power. The only difference is that the Repubs feed the scraps to their dogs while the Dems allow the poor to have the scraps.

[azbackpackr]

And the scraps we get are smaller every year. I have tried for 20 years to break into the mainstream, but it doesn't want me. Screw 'em. The US class system is the most highly stratified of any industrialized country, and yet we like to kid ourselves into thinking we have a "classless" society.

[Jeffshadows]

Rosemont goes ahead in buying equipment for mine

Tony Davis Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:00 am

The permit isn't in yet for the Rosemont Mine, but filters, shovels, trucks and other equipment are on order for the $900 million project.

Rosemont Copper Co. has bought more than $250 million worth of equipment for the proposed mine in the Santa Rita Mountains southeast of Tucson. Most of it won't arrive until 2011, although some key items will come this year.

Of the $250 million, about $140 million worth of equipment was bought from local vendors, although it was manufactured elsewhere in the United States. The remaining equipment was manufactured outside this country.

The purchases started as long ago as 2007. The most recent equipment buy, $31 million for 14 new filters to process copper ore into tailings, came in the first quarter of 2010.

So far, the company has paid more than $40 million in upfront costs for some of the equipment, with most of that going toward three mills to grind the copper ore down into fine sand for processing, and to related equipment.

The company has also invested about $100 million in permitting, geologic and engineering studies.

Since the U.S. Forest Service isn't scheduled to decide until the final three months of 2010 whether to approve Rosemont's permit application to build and operate the mine, it's possible that the company might have paid for equipment it will never use at the site. Or, its use could be delayed if the permit is stalled by opposition lawsuits.

If the permit is approved on schedule, the company plans to start construction on the copper project by March 2011 and begin stripping vegetation and moving dirt for the mine in the second quarter of 2011. Copper production would start in early to mid-2012, under this schedule.

Buying mining equipment years in advance is not unusual in the industry because it takes so long to deliver it, said Michael Rieber, a retired University of Arizona mining economist.

"Mining by its very nature is taking chances. You start the process of a mine, and maybe five or 10 years go by before you do any mining," Rieber said. "Somewhere along the way you have to have faith that the price of what you are extracting will cover the costs.

"It's like a guy who opens a new restaurant in the middle of a recession. He didn't plan that yesterday. He planned it two years ago. It's that the numbers in mining are much greater, that's all."

To some extent, the copper company's advance equipment orders and payments also reflect its confidence that it will get a permit and start the mine as scheduled.

Opponents have said they will go to court if necessary to block construction of the project on 900 acres of private land and 3,500 acres of public land in the Santa Ritas. But company officials have said they expect their quest to succeed.

In part, that's because they are trying to build an environmentally sustainable project in many respects, they say. In part, they say they're confident because until now, most federal officials have long interpreted the federal 1872 mining law as saying they can't say "no" to a proposed mine unless its operations would violate other environmental laws.

That's usually been the case in the history of public-lands mining. But the one exception did force a mining company to sell some trucks and other equipment it had previously bought in anticipation of getting approved.

That was the proposed Glamis gold mine on federally managed land in the Southern California desert. A tangled series of events led to the mine being turned down after years of controversy. The decision by federal and state officials was ultimately upheld in 2009 by a tribunal called under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

But Rosemont also can't wait until its permit is issued to order equipment, said Rod Pace, Rosemont Copper's president and CEO. It takes up to three years to fill many or most of the equipment orders, he said. For some equipment, the delivery time could be longer if Rosemont were to wait until a permit were granted, and the price of copper keeps rising and the industry is booming by then, Pace said.

"If you don't order ahead of time, you take the risk that you won't get it in time," Pace said.

The company also had no choice but to pay in advance for much of the mills' cost, more than most of the other equipment, because only two manufacturers worldwide make these mills and they're being specifically designed for Rosemont, Pace said.

But an environmentalist critic of the mine said he thinks the company is taking chances with its investors' money by ordering equipment this far ahead.

"This is especially true in this particular case" where opposition to Rosemont is so intense, compared to places like Safford and the Globe-Miami area, where mines were permitted in recent years and opposition wasn't as broad-based as it has been to Rosemont, said Roger Featherstone, director of the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition.

"If I were an Augusta shareholder, I'd want to know about this kind of risk-taking," he said, referring to Augusta Resource Corp., Rosemont's Canadian-based parent company.

At the same time, Featherstone said Rosemont is spending its way to a permit, by showing the Forest Service and the public that it has invested so much money: "It does help in the court of public opinion for a company to show it's inevitable."

Rosemont's advance purchases could help the company's position with the Forest Service, economist Rieber said.

"The more they buy ahead of time, the bigger the risk that the prices will change, the process will get dragged on so long that the value of the money they have outstanding is less," said Rieber, who said he believes that a permit ultimately will be granted. "It shows they are willing to take the risk. That would be of interest to whoever gives the permits.

"If they said that they wanted to build a mine and didn't put anything into the pot, who would believe them?" he added.

Rosemont's Pace, however, said he doesn't think the Forest Service will give much consideration to the company's equipment investments in deciding on the permit.

"It will be the economics of the project as a whole" that will make a difference, Pace said.

"Mining by its very nature is taking chances. You start the process of a mine, and maybe five or 10 years go by before you do any mining. Somewhere along the way you have to have faith that the price of what you are extracting will cover the costs."

Michael Rieber

Retired mining economist

Contact reporter Tony Davis at 806-7746

[azbackpackr]

I have a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.