Home | Real Estate Search | Classifieds | Place an Ad | Public Notices | Galleries | Obituaries | Subscriber Services | Kingman Digital | Contact Us
Kingman Daily Miner | Kingman, Arizona

home : opinion : columns April 29, 2016


6/30/2011 6:00:00 AM
Column: Salazar's mining decision was a political one
Gregory Yount
Manager, The NAU Project

Secretary of the Interior Salazar's decision - to extend the 2-year moratorium on mining claims and choosing the withdrawal of 1 million acres of land from mineral entry for 20 years as the preferred alternative for the final Environmental Impact Study - was a political one. It is not supported in any way by the draft EIS that was prepared to help inform that decision. The draft EIS, inadequate and largely biased against uranium exploration and mining, does not make the case that uranium mining outside the Grand Canyon National Park will threaten the park, its natural resources, tourism or the water quality of its springs or the Colorado River itself.

The draft EIS is a document that is so poorly researched and written that the BLM will be in violation of the NEPA statutes should they publish a final EIS without first writing and publishing for comment a supplemental draft EIS that more adequately addresses the numerous comments submitted by myself and others of the current draft. It is really that bad.

It is extremely frustrating that this entire withdrawal issue is based on the outright lies, half-truths, and other misrepresentations by the opponents of uranium mining in Northern Arizona. For example, the opponents of uranium mining would have people believe that uranium mining will take place in the Grand Canyon National Park, on the shores of the Colorado River, or on the rim of the canyon itself. All of these claims are lies. The boundaries of the park were set to take into account the multiple-use designation that included uranium mining on federal lands surrounding the park.

The idea that uranium mining could in anyway contaminate the Colorado River is another falsehood. There are about 30 breccia pipes within the Grand Canyon that contain ore grade uranium mineralization that is currently (and naturally) eroding into the Colorado River. The Colorado River itself carries a natural uranium load of about 120,000 pounds of dissolved uranium in the water that flows through the canyon each year. In addition to this, the natural silt load of the Colorado River transports an additional 50,000 pounds of uranium annually. However, this transport of uranium is minor compared to the 818,000 pounds per year of uranium transported by the silt load in the Colorado River prior to the construction of the two major dams on this river. (The dams now trap the old silt-bound uranium load as lake bottom sediments above each dam). This was almost equivalent to washing the entire uranium content of a single high grade uranium breccia pipe ore body contained in a mine like the Arizona One down the Colorado River every year!

To even suggest that modern uranium mining would, in anyway, meaningfully add to the natural-dissolved or silt-transported uranium loading of the Colorado River and thus "contaminate" the river is a fabrication meant to scare the uninformed. By the standards of the opponents of uranium mining, the Colorado River is already horribly contaminated with natural uranium sources and should be banned as a source of water for all time. However, this is false. Rivers move silt and always have dissolved metals in them, including uranium. It is what rivers do!

The related claim promoted by supporters of the withdrawal that uranium mining would "contaminate" the ground water and springs surrounding the Grand Canyon is based on the idea that the ground water is in a pristine state. That mining uranium in a breccia pipe will pollute the ground water near the pipe and that this water will then move through miles of geologic structures undiluted and undiminished to springs and wells near and in the Grand Canyon and then be consumed by people and wildlife is simply not true. If it was, the thousands of uranium mineralized breccia pipes that exist around and within the Grand Canyon would have already polluted the existing ground water with uranium and other metals so as to forever make the water unusable.

The bottoms of these breccia pipes sit in the regional aquifer of the Redwall Limestone ("R-aquifer") and are mineralized with uranium to various degrees. For millions of years these thousands of breccia pipes have been "leaking" uranium and other metals into the ground water.

Why then, is the ground water in the R-aquifer not already hugely contaminated by millions of years of natural uranium leakage? The reasons are several-fold but quite simple: the area in the breccia pipe where the highest grades of uranium are located is separated vertically from the R-aquifer by hundreds of feet of highly impermeable rock layers. The rock in the deeper sections of a breccia pipe (above the present day water table) are impermeable to rapid water transport, but instead very slowly transport water on a time scale of thousands of years. The lightly mineralized lower sections of a breccia pipe that are seated in the saturated R-aquifer emit a "natural" plume of uranium and other metals into the R-aquifer that gets thoroughly mixed and diluted, however, into the huge water reservoir that is the slowly moving ground water beneath the Colorado Plateau. The uranium and other metals coming from these breccia pipes is simply diluted into harmless amounts the same way that uranium is diluted in the Colorado River. In other words, the sheer volume of water involved 'waters down' the very small amount of uranium naturally escaping breccia pipes.

In addition, the rocks in the R-aquifer contain minerals that take uranium out of its dissolved state in the water and lock it up within these minerals. The rock units of the R-aquifer act like a sponge and suck the uranium out of the water. These are among the reasons that thousands of breccia pipes "naturally" leaking uranium and other metals don't contaminate the ground water around the Grand Canyon to levels that are harmful to people and other life forms living in the area and those living downstream of the Grand Canyon.

Another misrepresentation is that the land being withdrawn represents only 12 percent of the breccia pipe uranium resource in northern Arizona. This is untrue. Currently, research by industry indicates that the 1 million acres proposed for withdrawal would reduce the northern Arizona uranium resource still available for mining by 76 percent. This is because the lands proposed for withdrawal host the highest amount of uranium per breccia pipe compared to the breccia pipes found in lands outside this area. This is, in fact, the reason why most of the mining claims covering breccia pipe uranium prospects are in this 1 million acre parcel and not elsewhere: the lands proposed for withdrawal are the sweet spot for high quality uranium breccia pipes. Understand, nearly all of the thousands of breccia pipes in the USGS's most favored area for uranium endowment have uranium in them to some degree, but breccia pipes that have a mineable 2 million pounds or more of uranium are rare, and nearly all of these are located within the proposed withdrawal area!

After a withdrawal, the remaining lands open to uranium exploration and mining would be those lands least likely to contain economic amounts of uranium in a breccia pipe.

The fact that the draft EIS does not address such issues is a disgrace. The draft EIS itself is a disgrace and represents not the best science, but an attempt to create the most uncertainty with the least amount of actual analysis possible.

My small exploration firm is an LLC and is American-owned, many other exploration companies with claims in Northern Arizona are American-owned as well. The fact that VANE Minerals and Denison Mines are British- and Canadian-based public companies, respectively, is neither here nor there. Any American can own these companies with a click of a mouse. What is sure, is that a withdrawal will make forfeit without compensation the tens of thousands (my case) or the millions of dollars that exploration companies have spent in good faith exploring Northern Arizona to provide uranium for our nation's nuclear reactors.

So my question is this, is a withdrawal policy based on deceit ever good policy?

President Obama promised to use the best science available to make decisions within his administration. This President has shown himself no different than the Bush administration in this regard. Ideology trumps science and political payback and pandering trumps all.

Related Stories:
• Uranium mining lawsuit can proceed, judge says


    Most Viewed     Recently Commented
•   Hard legal lessons faced by accused in home invasion case (3018 views)

•   20-year sentence possible for murder in Yucca (2026 views)

•   ATV rider the focus of a complicated rescue effort (1579 views)

•   McCain fundraiser arrested following drug raid (1231 views)

•   Alleged theft among counts returned by grand jury (1197 views)



Reader Comments

Posted: Saturday, July 2, 2011
Article comment by: Donnie C

@Gregory Yount,

First I would like to thank you for the time you put into shedding the light on this issue. You have only validated my summation that the Obama administration was only using the mining debate as an excuse to further economically strap Arizona. This was a vendetta strategy, nothing more and nothing less. We cannot eat uranium, but we can sure feed ourselves and our state from the commerce it creates. The utilization of modern mining technologies would go a long way in cleaning up the Colorado River. This was not about the environment, nor was is about public safety, it was about punishing us for not goose stepping in line with the President's agenda! Thank you!


Posted: Friday, July 1, 2011
Article comment by: PIZZLE PIZZLE

@ "mindless pap"

I was trying to explain to you how one project can create more jobs and wealth than just those from the parent company. You stated 'good jobs for only a handful of mining insiders' which is completely wrong.

The total executive, administrative staff (from clerks, purchasing staff, permit coordinators, admin assistants) to miners, safety admins, haul drivers, etc, will be in the hundreds, MINIMUM, for any decent mining operation.

Then you add all the indirect jobs created that I mentioned in the previous post. Indirect jobs being those for companies other than the mining parent company that exist to serve the needs and meet the demands of the mine's operation. Everything from restaurants, engineering firms, lawyers, logistics/freight companies, etc. Those are what bring the number of jobs into the thousands.

Whether it is 1000 or thousands, or even if it was only 500 GOOD paying jobs (not McJobs, but GOOD salary jobs for a nice living), those are all still high enough numbers of employed to make a big difference in our region. It's time people used their heads and stopped being a drag on our economy.


Posted: Friday, July 1, 2011
Article comment by: Gregory Yount

@ "Trout Guy"

While it is true that some of the uranium being mined is covered by a take-off agreement for foriegn utilities, the actual uranium is seldom shipped over seas. The uranium is typically processed and used in the US, but the value of the mined uranium is transfered to the foreign company to purchase uranium that is closer to them for processing. That way, the foreign company does not have to pay for the large shipping costs of moving processed U3O8.

For the most part, uranium mined in the US, stays in the US and is used in our Nuclear power plants.

As to your other point about mining will continue even with a withdrawal, it is so kind of you to support the taking of the $40,000 dollars that I have invested in exploration and the Millions of dollars that others have invested. I am sure that I will not miss that kind of cash at all.

There is already plenty of evidence that uranium mining will not pollute the Colorado River, the ground water, or the seeps and springs....did you read my article at all?



Posted: Friday, July 1, 2011
Article comment by: Trout Guy

Most of this ore is going out of state and out of country. Save it for ourselves. Les not have another country use our resources, 20 years from now we will have better science to ensure that there will be no water contamination They are still feeling the impact of uranium mining on the Navajo nation and that was 50 years ago. Let's take a 20 year time out and make sure. Btw the moratorium won't stop current mining.

Posted: Thursday, June 30, 2011
Article comment by: mindless pap

"Article comment by: PIZZLE PIZZLE

@ "mindless pap"

Like I stated in the other article, you must not understand how a project spurs jobs not only in the "primary company" but all the offshoots required.

Machinary vendors, logistics & shipping companies, excavation/engineers, local inspectors, parts sales, equipment rental places, restaurants, etc etc- all of these jobs will be created. You're only factoring in the mining company itself which would be the miners/admin staff and owners. When you factor in all the wealth generated it really is up to about a thousand jobs."

So now it's a thousand jobs instead of thousands. Right. Give up on the ice tea that you are being fed by the wise ice tea bag party.



Posted: Thursday, June 30, 2011
Article comment by: Larry Turner

See the Grand Canyon uranium mining Draft EIS public comment letter found at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/az/pdfs/withdraw/deis/comments/w-attach.Par.94257.File.pdf/04-25-11_DIR.pdf for a geological explanation why more than 75% of the northern Arizona uranium endowment happens to be contained in the lands proposed for withdrawal by Sec. Salazar. This particular evidence is going to be especially problematic for a Department of Interior that has, to date, represented that only 12% of the economically-producible uranium ore in northern Arizona is contained in the proposed withdrawal area.

Posted: Thursday, June 30, 2011
Article comment by: PIZZLE PIZZLE

@ "mindless pap"

Like I stated in the other article, you must not understand how a project spurs jobs not only in the "primary company" but all the offshoots required.

Machinary vendors, logistics & shipping companies, excavation/engineers, local inspectors, parts sales, equipment rental places, restaurants, etc etc- all of these jobs will be created. You're only factoring in the mining company itself which would be the miners/admin staff and owners. When you factor in all the wealth generated it really is up to about a thousand jobs.


Posted: Thursday, June 30, 2011
Article comment by: mindless pap

You failed to mention the lies by the uninformed and misinformed Ayn Randists of Kingman that uranium mining on the Arizona strip will produce "thousands" of "high paying jobs"

No, uranium mining on the Arizona strip will produce a handful of well paying jobs for a few mining insiders while residents of Kingman and Mohave county will get a few crumbs thrown at them.


Posted: Thursday, June 30, 2011
Article comment by: Tom D.

"President Obama promised to use the best science available to make decisions within his administration. This President has shown himself no different than the Bush administration in this regard. Ideology trumps science and political payback and pandering trumps all."

Finally a letter/column that doesn't blame everything on our current President. The last sentence says it all, regardless who's in charge, lobbyists and special interests control our country and economy, we've been hijacked.




Article Comment Submission Form
Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comments are limited to Facebook character limits. In order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit excessive comment entries.
Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Required
Last Name:
Required
Telephone:
Required
Email:
Required
Comment:
Required
Passcode:
Required
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.
   


Advanced Search

Find more about Weather in Kingman, AZ
Click for weather forecast



Find it Features Blogs Milestones Extras Submit Other Publications Local Listings
Real Estate Search | Classifieds | Place an Ad | Find Kingman Jobs | Kingman Chamber | e-News | Contact Us | RSS | Site Map
© Copyright 2016 Western News&Info, Inc.® The Kingman Daily Miner is the information source for Kingman and surrounding area communities in Northern Arizona. Original content may not be reprinted or distributed without the written permission of Western News&Info, Inc.® Kingman Daily Miner Online is a service of WNI. By using the Site, kdminer.com ®, you agree to abide and be bound by the Site's terms of use and Privacy Policy, which prohibit commercial use of any information on the Site. Click here to email your questions, comments or suggestions. Kingman Daily Miner Online is a proud publication of Western News&Info, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.


Software © 1998-2016 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved