Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Moderator: HAZ - Moderators

Linked Guides none
Linked Areas none
User avatar
Canyonram
Posts: 230
Joined: Jun 01 2006 9:03 pm
City, State: Payson, AZ

Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by Canyonram » Dec 21 2010 12:14 pm

Denison Mines has applied to the Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality to mine uranium near the Canyon. There are over 1,000 mining claims within miles of the Park that will watch the decision and then proceed. The debate has been ongoing for a few years---uranium prices dropped in the 1980's but, with the increased interest in nuclear fuel as a power source, prices have gone back up and uranium mining is now more profitable.

For some history on the current move to begin mining:

(dead link removed)

(or use your search box on "uranium mining grand canyon"

For the Denison Mine application:

(dead link removed)

For the Native American perspective:
(dead link removed)
http://www.indigenousaction.org/uranium ... nd-canyon/

There will be public hearings in Flag and Fredonia---during the peak of snow storm season.

User avatar
Canyonram
Posts: 230
Joined: Jun 01 2006 9:03 pm
City, State: Payson, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by Canyonram » Nov 10 2011 7:53 am

Chumley,

Review the 120 posts on this thread for links and the debate.

You can do a simple 'Search' on Denison Mines to learn about the company. You have a world of information available by punching in a few key words into your Search engine. For example:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Denison-M ... 7.html?x=0

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2011/05/ ... nd-canyon/

The connection between Zimbawea and Iran:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/internation ... s-1.345493

By all means draw your own conclusion especially when the research sources are so available given even minimal effort.

User avatar
chumley
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sep 18 2002 8:59 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by chumley » Nov 10 2011 9:16 am

Canyonram, I've been following the thread from the beginning (you'll notice I even posted here back in February) and have been happy to be educated by the posts from you and others. As I stated before, I have no opinion on this issue, not for nor against, because despite my curiosity and what I've learned, I just don't know enough to make an educated decision.

But in my opinion, your argument is significantly diminished when you imply that uranium mined in Arizona will be used to help Iran's nuclear program. I think there are plenty of concerns to support your view that are 100% factual. Bringing in scary possibilities only makes me wonder what other things you've argued that are similarly far-fetched.

Additionally, South Korea and Canada are staunch allies of the United States. We currently trade all kinds of products and resources with them and have for a long time, including uranium. I don't understand why you imply that we should be scared of continuing what we already do.

As for Iran, it will find a way to do what it wants to do without help from mining in Arizona. They've got friends in Venezuela, Russia and other places who will be more than happy to help. If Iran mines uranium in Zimbabwe, that's something our government will have to deal with politically with Zimbabwe. I'm still not following the relevance of the Grand Canyon mine in that scenario.

I respect your opinion on this subject, but you lost me on the whole Iran thing.
Profound observer

User avatar
Canyonram
Posts: 230
Joined: Jun 01 2006 9:03 pm
City, State: Payson, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by Canyonram » Nov 11 2011 8:40 am

Denison Mines is in the business of mining, milling, and then selling for profit. I don't think it 'far-fetched' to speculate that their final product makes its way into nuclear weapons instead of nuclear power plants. Denison is a private company and not 'owned' or operated by the Canadian government so their sales are not necessarily tied to any status of Canada as our ally. Denison can sell to a 'safe' buyer and how it is then passed to others is a legitimate concern. Ask the citizens of Isreal if they believe the question of how Iran is going to obtain high-grade uranium is legitimate especially in light of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 proclaiming that the "regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e16218.htm

Doesn't every argument against Uranium Mining near Grand Canyon involve a degree of 'scare' tactics??

Sitting on the fence and not making a decision either for or against Uranium Mining at the Canyon is the equivalent to voting 'Yes' on Uranium Mining. To make a decision, we all have to gather the 'Pro' and 'Con' of any argument and weigh the evidence. A decision is often made by a preponderance of the evidence and not because we have gathered every single iota of evidence . . . or even agree with all of the speculations.

User avatar
Al_HikesAZ
Posts: 1348
Joined: May 16 2005 1:01 pm
City, State: Scottsdale, AZ
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by Al_HikesAZ » Jan 09 2012 2:07 pm

20 year ban on new Uranium Mining claims at Grand Canyon announced today
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... 52466224/1
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration announced a federal ban Monday on new mining claims affecting 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon, an area known to be rich in high-grade uranium ore reserves.. . .
But I don't quite know what this means
Salazar said the ban would not affect more than 3,000 mining claims already staked in the area near the Grand Canyon.
I guess the "devil is in the details".
Anybody can make a hike harder. The real skill comes in making the hike easier.
Not if we can help it UNCLE JACK. http://www.sleepingdogtv.com/reel/Uncle-Jack.aspx Not if we can help it.

User avatar
Dave1
Posts: 331
Joined: Jan 25 2009 12:36 am
City, State: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by Dave1 » Feb 05 2013 4:20 pm

Appeals court upholds reopening of uranium mine near Grand Canyon

http://cronkitenewsonline.com/2013/02/a ... nd-canyon/

User avatar
Tough_Boots
Posts: 1740
Joined: Mar 28 2008 7:08 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by Tough_Boots » May 27 2013 12:57 pm

Here's a fun twist:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nava ... aO4X9htZZc
A uranium mining company seeking a mineral lease on state land in northwestern Arizona could have a hard time transporting the ore off-site because of the Navajo Nation's objections to an industry that left a legacy of death and disease among tribal members.

The section of land in Coconino County is surrounded by the Navajo Nation's Big Boquillas Ranch. The tribe has said it will not grant Wate Mining Company LLC permission to drive commercial trucks filled with chunks of uranium ore across its land to be processed at a milling site in Blanding, Utah.
"there is no love where there is no bramble."
--bill callahan

User avatar
chumley
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sep 18 2002 8:59 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by chumley » May 27 2013 7:34 pm

Tough_Boots wrote:Here's a fun twist:
That'll be easy to get around. They'll transport it out on the eyesore sky bridge, then through the casino, and up the new tram they're building. Simple!
Profound observer

User avatar
joebartels
Posts: 7013
Joined: Nov 20 1996 12:00 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by joebartels » Nov 27 2014 10:08 pm

Hike Arizona it ROCKS!

User avatar
Tough_Boots
Posts: 1740
Joined: Mar 28 2008 7:08 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by Tough_Boots » Apr 08 2015 9:36 pm

update to the story:
A federal judge has ruled against environmentalists in their fight to halt a uranium mine south of the Grand Canyon that they say will harm people, water and wildlife in the region.
http://www.seattlepi.c...
"there is no love where there is no bramble."
--bill callahan

User avatar
toddak
Posts: 243
Joined: Nov 15 2005 8:46 pm
City, State: Puhoynix, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by toddak » Apr 09 2015 6:58 am

The Forest Service declined to comment, citing a possible appeal. The coalition of environmental groups and the Havasupai Tribe have 60 days to challenge Campbell's ruling.
Gee, I wonder if there will be an appeal, and then another ruling, and then another appeal, and then another ruling.....

User avatar
Tough_Boots
Posts: 1740
Joined: Mar 28 2008 7:08 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by Tough_Boots » Oct 13 2015 9:59 am

A Tuscon congressman is attempting to make the watershed a national monument:
According to a statement from Grijalva's office, the bill, if successful,"permanently protects the Grand Canyon from new uranium mining claims; protects tribal sacred cultural sites; promotes a more collaborative regional approach between tribal nations and federal land managers; protects commercial and recreational hunting; preserves grazing and water rights; and conserves the Grand Canyon watershed."
http://www.phoenixnewt...
"there is no love where there is no bramble."
--bill callahan

User avatar
chumley
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sep 18 2002 8:59 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by chumley » Oct 13 2015 10:36 am

@Tough_Boots
For now this is a typical politician whoring for publicity (it's time to start fundraising for re-election next year!).

He held a news conference to announce that he's going to file this next week. It's not even been presented anywhere publicly yet. There is no text of the proposed act, just his news conference. This is almost Donald Trump-esque! (zing!) ;)

Once he files it, then it will go to committee, and quite possibly die there. If it gets out of committee then maybe it's worth discussing. Until then politics as usual.

Last time he whored himself for Oak Flat. How's that one proceeding?

Call me a cynic. When it comes to our government functioning, I definitely am one.
Profound observer

User avatar
chumley
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sep 18 2002 8:59 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by chumley » Oct 06 2016 10:06 am

Of course, if you write a bill that has zero chance of passage, you can skip the congress altogether and get the president to act unilaterally via the Antiquities Act!

Sounds like there might be some workings toward that and representatives elected by the people of Arizona are none too pleased that their voice isn't being heard in the decision making process.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /91648716/
Profound observer

User avatar
flagscott
Posts: 333
Joined: Jan 03 2016 7:41 pm
City, State: Flagstaff, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by flagscott » Oct 06 2016 11:08 am

chumley wrote:Sounds like there might be some workings toward that and representatives elected by the people of Arizona are none too pleased that their voice isn't being heard in the decision making process.
Is there an emoji with me playing the world's tiniest violin? As a recent president who almost never used the Antiquties Act said, elections have consequences. So long as President Obama is president, he gets to decide where monuments happen. I don't believe that the Act requires any hearings, and it certainly doesn't require the approval of uranium-loving senators.

The stupid thing about this article is that there's no there there. There's no evidence that Obama is planning a monument here. It's really just attention-seeking and a play for more corporate donations by Flake and McCain. @Chumley, above, claimed that Grijalva was "whoring" by introducing legislation to ban mining. I'm not sure where that definition of "whoring" comes from because, as I understand it, whoring means selling out to moneyed interests. Flake and McCain are coming much closer to that word here, because they are clearly selling out to uranium mining companies, regardless of the consequences for Arizona's water and air and the fact that someday these mines are all going to be Superfund sites, cleaned up at taxpayer expense.

User avatar
chumley
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sep 18 2002 8:59 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by chumley » Oct 06 2016 11:30 am

Clarification to the term I used: "whoring for publicity". The publicity, in turn, helps raise campaign funds from people who agree with their particular viewpoint. (More popularly referred to as "pandering to the base"). And I agree with you 100%, Flake and McCain are doing it here, just as Grijalva was doing it earlier.
Profound observer

User avatar
flagscott
Posts: 333
Joined: Jan 03 2016 7:41 pm
City, State: Flagstaff, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by flagscott » Oct 06 2016 12:06 pm

chumley wrote:Clarification to the term I used: "whoring for publicity". The publicity, in turn, helps raise campaign funds from people who agree with their particular viewpoint. (More popularly referred to as "pandering to the base"). And I agree with you 100%, Flake and McCain are doing it here, just as Grijalva was doing it earlier.
I appreciate that clarification. But I still think that there's a fundamental difference between a congressman doing his job (introducing legislation) and our senators' "raising alarm" about a hypothetical monument that might turn out to be a figment of the imagination. Loads of bills get introduced each year with the expectation that they will not go anywhere. But this isn't necessarily just attention-seeking. Sometimes it takes a few cycles for a bill to accrue enough sponsors to move forward. Sometimes the hearings on a bill can help to attract attention to a cause. Sometimes bills get folded into other bills or end up as a part of the horse-trading (or perhaps horse-grinding) process. So, I disagree with the idea that introducing a bill with little chance of passage is pure attention-seeking--it can be a useful step in the process.

I'm sure that getting attention can be a motivation also, but it's not the only one. When you boil it down, congressfolks really only have two jobs: introducing legislation and voting on legislation. All the hearings and speeches are just fluff. So, I'm not bothered when representatives on either side do their jobs, even if most of the bills will never pass.

User avatar
chumley
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sep 18 2002 8:59 am
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Re: Uranium Mining at Grand Canyon

Post by chumley » Oct 26 2018 10:12 am

I found an article last week that I found to be quite educational regarding the history of land preservation in Arizona as it relates to mining near Grand Canyon.

I've always found it a little bit against conventional wisdom that the vast majority of Wilderness Areas in Arizona were created during the Republican administrations of Reagan and Bush 41.

The Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 designated about 1.1 million acres as wilderness, more than tripling the wilderness areas in the state.

It was 1984 that designated places that today we take for granted as wildernesses:
Aravaipa Canyon
Four Peaks
Salome
Escudilla
Bear Wallow

Flagstaff area:
Kachina Peaks
Kendrick
Strawberry Crater

Sedona area:
Red Rock Secret Mtn
Munds Mountain
Sycamore Canyon (originally from 1964, but 11,000 acres added in 84)
Woodchute

Sky Islands:
Miller Peak (Huachuca Mtns)
Galiuro (made 50% larger in 1984)
Mt. Wrightson (Santa Rita Mtns)
Chiricahua (originally established in 1964, increased by +300% in 1984)
Rincon

Mogollon Rim drainages:
Fossil Springs
West Clear Creek
Wet Beaver Creek
Hellsgate

Plus those specifically protected from mining near Grand Canyon:
Beaver Dam Mtns
Cottonwood Point
Grand Wash Cliffs
Kanab Creek
Mt. Logan
Mt. Trumbull
Paria-Vermillion
Saddle Mtn

Also, old favorites like the Mazatzals and Supersitions were increased in size in The Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984.

What I didn't realize is the bipartisan compromise that occurred in 1984 to make this all happen.

It's pretty interesting reading if you like this kind of thing.
The Arizona Wilderness Act is rightfully called the gold standard of stakeholder consensus. The Act is the product of a historic agreement on wilderness designations and multiple use land policy that involved stakeholders from across the spectrum, including the Reagan Administration, the State of Arizona and Arizona’s entire congressional delegation including members from both sides of the aisle, environmental groups, mining industry representation, the Bureau of Land Management, individual ranchers, the timber industry, utility groups, local and state governments, Native Americans, the Forest Service, and others. The group of stakeholders at the table was broad, bipartisan, and approached the issue from every imaginable standpoint. Even given this diversity, upon passage of the Act, stakeholders believed a “win win” had been struck for all interested parties.
While the attached document comes from a group that claims to be non-partisan, it clearly supports one side of this issue, so be aware of that as you read.
Attachments
Wilderness-Act-of-1984-Dec-2016-1.pdf
(825.12 KiB) Downloaded 13 times

Post Reply

Return to “Grand Canyon Forum”


cron