COMMENTS on AZ STAR BLOG concerning Jamies Sturgess
Opinion: Copper Mine at Rosemont will greatly benefit community

1. Comment by Robert E. (Liberty) � January 16,2007 @ 6:08AM

"Reclaiming mine land. Augusta will start restoring the land and revegetating soon after the mine opens"
Think what has been to revegetate mines around Green Valley

"The plan includes a perimeter screening berm constructed within the first few years of mining and locating all facilities to minimize impacts"
That would really help the view in GV - not

"This mine has the potential to provide exceptional economic benefits to Southern Arizona and the United States, hundreds of well-paying jobs"
Then we are left with another GV mess forever.

My job depends on copper but I don't think it is in the best long term interest to go after every bit we can get our hands on.
It is beautiful where the mine site is located and along a gorgeous stretch of hiway.
Can't we leave this deposit alone till we really need it rather than because some group 'wants' it?

2. Comment by Karen A. (#5809) � January 16,2007 @ 6:25AM

Water use and dust control. Augusta has purchased Central Arizona Project water to use at the mine. The Rosemont plan will use the latest technology for a state-of-the-art tailings process, saving water and eliminating dust and air pollution.

Trucking in huge amounts of water on Hwy. 83 is unacceptable.

Minimizing visual impact. The plan includes a perimeter screening berm constructed within the first few years of mining and locating all facilities to minimize impacts � visually and environmentally.

Yuck. A huge unnatural berm will do the trick of fooling our eyes. Within a few years of mining? Unacceptable.

Community support. Augusta's proposed endowment of approximately $50 million would be managed by a local community board to support additional open space land acquisition, invasive species control, public safety programs and other local needs.

This little bribe would not be needed if this mine were rejected. There would be no need for invasive species control or public safety programs.

3. Comment by sc w. (prodesert) � January 16,2007 @ 7:01AM

So many promises, such a devastating effect on what makes Arizona such a special place in the world. So small a benefit (copper for a measly 5% of the population for a measly 20 yrs for a measly couple of hundred jobs in state with @ 6 million people) and we are left with another hideous, toxic scar for the remainder of eternity.

Please go to
https://www.scenicsantaritas.org/
and sign the petition.
if the petition fails, keep the fight going. Please do not let this selfish, short-sighted attempt (by a non-American company, no less) to succeed in exploiting our beloved desert .

4. Comment by John S. (#398) � January 16,2007 @ 7:01AM

Augusta wants to use Cap water for its mining operations. I keep hearing that we are in a drought and are asked to conserve water. Hog wash! Our City, County and State governments have lied to us again. If our water is so precious why would they allow Augusta to use it? Until they can really convince me (and they won�t) that I need to save water, I will use as much as I want when I want. The powers to be need to lead by example and not let Augusta mine there by not giving them permission to use Cap water or ground water, enough lip service.

5. Comment by Joel S. (NativeSon) � January 16,2007 @ 7:14AM

They'll shut it down and leave an unholy mess the moment prices drop. Haven't we seen that enough?

6. Comment by Jack L. (MainelyJack) � January 16,2007 @ 7:27AM

comment is below your threshold.�

But if they mine, Ernesto Portillo will be soooo upset.

7. Comment by Scott P. (S) � January 16,2007 @ 7:41AM

Hey, Augusta, will it be OK if an American Company comes up to Canada and tears up your land, takes all the benefit and profit from it, and leaves it torn up forever?

No? I didn't think so.

Hit the road.

8. Comment by rick d. (ranchguy) � January 16,2007 @ 7:41AM

Nicole Fyffe et al should offer the $11.5 million for the mineral rights and let Augusta go with another plan (homes, etc) if the $11.5 does not work, go higher.

The county were FOOLS not to buy it when offered the first time.
They were fools not to buy from Asarco @ $4 milion- it was a public offering folks.

9. Comment by Patrick B. (Pat Bishop) � January 16,2007 @ 7:57AM

The mining industry is the most irresponsible and destructive industry on this planet and it does not give a rip about the mess, or the people, it leaves behind once the profits have been pocketed.

10. Comment by francis w. (#6565) � January 16,2007 @ 8:04AM

This comment is below your threshold.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of industry would be okay with all NIMBY's here?

11. Comment by Harvey H. (#4779) � January 16,2007 @ 8:15AM

The law requires that mining companies fill the holes when they are done. Has this ever happened? They will keep their leases open for eons to avoid this environmental clean-up that is required by law. I say fill two holes first before digging a new one.

12. Comment by Richard S. (Harry Red Dog) � January 16,2007 @ 8:19AM

Easy one Francis. No industry is needed in the Santa Ritas. We've seen more than enough destruction by this industry and heard more than enough lies. Copper prices will inevitably fall and the ore will be mined less expensively in other countries with lower labor costs and fewer government restrictions.

We will be left with another ugly hole surrounded by a moonscape of piled dirt and a few scraggly trees.

How many times can Arizonans be fooled? Show me the results of a well-planned and executed reclaiming after the mine is closed. Then I will listen. Not before.

13. Comment by Ruben G. (2ndminer) � January 16,2007 @ 8:29AM

This comment is below your threshold. (View Comment)

To#9 Pat bishop, if you want to know something about mining, take a tour of one of our Arizona mines and see what the mining industry has to do to comply with E.P.A.standards before you say it is irresponsible.

14. Comment by Ruben G. (2ndminer) � January 16,2007 @ 8:31AM

To # 12 check out San Manuel sometime.

15. Comment by Vern T. (Vern T) � January 16,2007 @ 8:43AM

It would greatly benefit the executive officers of the mining company. There would be benefits to our community but they would be more than offset in non-monetary losses to the community.

If money is the ONLY thing that matters, this mine is absolutley the right way to go. If our community has values that include AND extend beyond the monetary, this mine is questionable.

16. Comment by steve s. (steve swiderski) � January 16,2007 @ 9:11AM

IS THIS GOING TO BE ANOTHER SOURCE OF WATER CONTAMINATION? OR WILL IT ALSO NOT USE LOTS OF WATER WE DONT HAVE? STOP THE GREED AND SUPPLY THE NEEDY

17. Comment by Richard S. (Harry Red Dog) � January 16,2007 @ 9:14AM

Ruben, I live in Oracle and have been to San Manuel many times. If this is your idea of a positive outcome, you and I have different views. An otherwise scenic area is marred by the pit and the giant concrete stacks.

Is this what you want for the Santa Rita?

18. Comment by Joseph C. (#4332) � January 16,2007 @ 9:16AM

This comment is below your threshold. (View Comment)

Our lifestyles require mining! It is pretty simple, no copper no electricity! American Mining Companies ARE actively mining all over the world, exactly because it is so difficult to mine in America due to environmental concerns. The current high price of copper makes mining economical once again locally. Mining is a highly competitive business, if its not Augusta then it will be another company like Grupo Mexico. Since when don't we need more industry in Tucson? Mining companies pay good wages! There could come a time when you will be begging for these kind of jobs!

Mining in America is much much better than it has every been. Wyoming strip mining (Kennecott Cordero Rojo for example) has succeeded in precisely recreating the terrain back to its original condition down to the boulder!

19. Comment by Sonja W. (yesica) � January 16,2007 @ 9:22AM

This comment is below your threshold. (View Comment)

The mining in the past is not the mining of the future. No longer are Mining Companies allowed to just tear the land up & leave it.
Strict EPA Regulations are in place that they have to follow & they do. All mining companies now have full-time Environmentalists on their staffs whose job it is to reclaim the land back to what it once was, of course without the metals that were taken from it.
An example of that is up in the mountains outside of Challis, Idaho. It was a beautiful sight to see elk grazing in the mountain pastures close to the mine. Workers were transported in buses and/or company trucks to cut back on the amount of vehicles in the area.
It has been a few years back since we lived in that area, but it was very impressive to see the work they were doing in reclaiming the land.
This has also been the standard for many mining operations now.
There isn't one person in this United States that doesn't benifit from what mining companies do. You have only to look around your house for to see that. And please do keep in mind that when the American Public no longer demands metals for their "better living" & everyday conveniences, mining companies will then & only then be out of business.

20. Comment by Vern T. (Vern T) � January 16,2007 @ 9:26AM

The Fitz cartoon today ties in with this.

21. Comment by Vern T. (Vern T) � January 16,2007 @ 9:29AM

18 Joseph: much of what you say is right on the money. But here in AZ, an example of the landscape being put back the way it was just doesn't come to mind.

The terrain of the Santa Ritas is vastly different than the prairies of the upper mid-west and would be much harder (and expensive) to protect and to remediate.

The mining industry has a long and spectacular history of fighting against all environmental regulation, not embracing it.

22. Comment by rick d. (ranchguy) � January 16,2007 @ 9:48AM

...and you are all familiar with Resolution Mine and their bid for Oak Flat near Superior/Globe. Their land trade will net hundreds of acres of NF just outside the Phoenix basin- so if they can't extract copper, they can still make out by development. Queen Creek canyon will disappear if they succeed at all.

Cananea has huge copper deposits and can supply north america for years to come. Developing more copper (either subsidence or open pit) is really not a need. The Peruvian complex (owned by Groupo and PD) has little environmental enforcement, low wages, and even more copper.

We don't really need the pit mine; we do need someone or the county to pony up the dough to close this issue. And the open space $174 million should focus on the Tucson basin, not Altar Valley and points west. The population lives near Tucson and uses the surrounding lands not Sasabe etc.
keep the focus, save the sky islands.

23. Comment by francis w. (#6565) � January 16,2007 @ 10:05AM

This comment is below your threshold.�

Four thumbs down for a simple question and no answers yet as to what kind of industry would be acceptable to the NIMBY's. The Santa Ritas are a part of our back yard, so to speak, as is the rest of the state.

24. Comment by Eric A. (EckJerome) � January 16,2007 @ 10:13AM

This comment is below your threshold.�

25. Comment by Richard S. (Harry Red Dog) � January 16,2007 @ 10:20AM

Francis 23

Maybe you don't get it. I will repeat:
"Easy one Francis. No industry is needed in the Santa Ritas."

or maybe I don't get it. Maybe we need more environmental blight that will remain long after the current cost of copper drops and the new mine is abandoned.

Grupo Mexico, a true friend to all, miners and environmentalists alike. Right. Augusta Resources will be different? What is there track record in reclamation? I looked at their website and all I found was information for investors.

26. Comment by Eric A. (EckJerome) � January 16,2007 @ 10:25AM

$32 Vern T.: Need an example?

Take a drive through the Patagonia Mountains and check out the extensive reclamation work done by Asarco. Mind you, they were court-ordered to do it...but in the end they did a pretty good job and received special recognition for it. So good that, in some areas, you won't realize there was once a mine there.

After that, go check out the ghost town of Ruby. If you could see before and after photos of the mined areas, you'd be pretty amazed. Also of interest, is that the ghost town and old pond created by a dam now support a myriad of wildlife (the focus of an episode of Nature many years ago). Mind you, much of the recovery in Ruby was done by nature. It's likewise amazing what nature can do to reclaim an area if you just leave it alone for a few decades.

These are border areas, so be wary of increased activity by illegal aliens caused our lack of border enforcement.

27. Comment by inboundhunter .. (inboundhunter) � January 16,2007 @ 10:36AM

Comment # 19 Sonya , One Word, Bull****!!

28. Comment by Who B. (Yo Daddy Now) � January 16,2007 @ 10:36AM

Do not forget about Yoram Levy, Thomas Warne and Triangle Ventures. Without them, this Rosemont mine venture would not even be possible!

29. Comment by inboundhunter .. (inboundhunter) � January 16,2007 @ 10:40AM

Comment # 10 Fransis, One that will not contaminate my well ,water and air. Too bad they did not find copper in your back yard.

30. Comment by Jo H. (our rights) � January 16, 2007 @ 10:44AM

Has anyone taken a ride south on I19 lately. Sad very sad. How will they fill that mess in?

31. Comment by inboundhunter .. (inboundhunter) � January 16,2007 @ 10:51AM

Comment # 14 Ruben, yep remember the good old days when the San Manuel Smelter was operating. You could smell that fine Odor for miles and just see that fine Smoggy air. Wasn�t it the state of Colorado that sued PB in the 80s, for the fresh San Manuel air they received from AZ. Winkelman, another fine PB town, note the nice homes!!

32. Comment by francis w. (#6565) � January 16,2007 @ 10:58AM

This comment is below your threshold.�

25. I dont think you "got it". I said the whole state of Arizona is our "back yard" as in NIMBY. Forget the Santa Ritas. What industries would be acceptable to those of you who seem to be against any industry that produces anything beneficial to our society?

33. Comment by francis w. (#6565) � January 16,2007 @ 11:02AM

This comment is below your threshold.�

29. As a matter of fact they did and thousands of us benefitted locally as did millions of people who used our product.

34. Comment by inboundhunter .. (inboundhunter) � January 16,2007 @ 11:17AM

Comment #32 Fransis W, Ones that do not contaminate our water, and air. Ones that do not rape the land. Chuckelbarry knows this mining company will be using the valleys well water to supply their water needs. Trucking water in would not be cost effective; tankers could never keep up with their demand for water. They cannot pipe the CAP to the mine because the pipe line would have to cross Private property and National Forest land. Beneficial to what part of our society? As I said yesterday, if copper was found in ORO Valley, Dove mountian or The Tucson foothills this mine would never exist.

35. Comment by Patrick B. (Pat Bishop) � January 16,2007 @ 11:22AM

Francis @32...usually it is not what you do; it is how you do it. The mining industry does not voluntarily clean up after itself and will fight court orders to clean up because the court fight is a hell of a lot cheaper than the reclamation / land restoration costs.

Visit Peru, Bolivia, or even Libby, Anaconda-Butte and Colstrip, Montana. How responsible has mining been?

Ten years ago I had a conversation with two American mining engineers in Iceland who were trying to negotiate an open-pit pumice mine. The Icelandic government stipulated after the mine was exhausted the land had to be restored to its original condition. The parting words of these engineers to me..."What the hell's the matter with these people? It's a mine, a hole in the ground!"

36. Comment by Joe F. (goofyfern) � January 16,2007 @ 11:30AM

This comment is below your threshold. �

37. Comment by inboundhunter .. (inboundhunter) � January 16,2007 @ 11:40AM

Chuckelbarry, Who is going to pay for the widening of HWY 83? Twenty years or more of Shift work, Union labor? Twenty-four hours of noise, seven days a week for 20 or more years?

38. Comment by Wes S. (#1) � January 16,2007 @ 11:45AM

Famous promises:

Several million teenaged boys to girl friends: I'll pull out in time, Baby. Honest.

Slim-Fast to City Council: Give us $7 million in property tax breaks and we'll bring lots of jobs to Tucson. Honest.

Chicago White Sox to Pima County: Give us a lucrative lease and we'll play ball in Tucson for at least 15 years. Honest.

Augusta Resource Corporation to Pima County: Let us have this mine and when we're done, you'll never know we were here. Honest.

39. Comment by inboundhunter .. (inboundhunter) � January 16,2007 @ 11:54AM

Comment # 36 Joe F, Prospectors were not corporate mining giants raping the land. We don�t want them to get better at cleaning their mess up. We don�t want them to make a mess to start with. Another fact, some of our family's ranches were here way before the mines were like mine. So take your pro mine bull**** and stick it up your tailing.

40. Comment by inboundhunter .. (inboundhunter) � January 16,2007 @ 12:05PM

Comment # 38 Wes S , you know it, when they leave, just a polluted hole in the desert with a mess of unemployed miners and supervisors, and polluted water wells. Note, no comment by # 36 on the water pollution generated by mining, or what the mines do with the contaminates. They pull out of the water when they recycle it.

41. Comment by Joel S. (NativeSon) � January 16,2007 @ 12:22PM

Francis W-We in Arizona learned our history of mining the hard way. We don't want it making a comeback, what don't you understand about that?

42. Comment by Karl W. (ktwaia) � January 16,2007 @ 12:41PM

Frances W. - how about industries that create and support human rights, health care, the environment, alternative energies, corporate responsibility, government for the people. Sound utopian!? maybe if corporations were not trying to manipulate people and the government for the sake of the corporate bottom line (which in reality only truly benefits a very few), these ideals would sound less utopian and more viable.

43. Comment by rick d. (ranchguy) � January 16,2007 @ 1:01PM

joe f.
My understanding was Group bought Asarco to GET control of Peru over PD, thence fired every PD manager. Group�s record sucks. I've been through the complex at Nicolai, and seen the 1,000's of 55 gallon drums and the aqua lake that feeds out to the east- and the gorge of eternal waste flowing into it (and what's that smell?) I would bet Peru looks something like that. And what is up with the clean up demanded of the Ray complex and the 'myth' of the Group guy w/ suitcase of cash to pay off EPA?
Resolution is still in trade for NF lands that the undisturbed surface may have more value than the ore below.

If a mining company is going to begin operations in the US, they had better go after the best ore they can, and have the cleanest plan possible for aftermath. Additionally, those resources need to be used here and not sold to highest bidder overseas. Long fight uphill if you consider another route.

44. Comment by aztex 9. (#6493) � January 16,2007 @ 1:14PM

This comment is below your threshold)

We need legislation passed that states that the land will be taken back without compensation if the mines do not fulfill their emvironmental obligations from the get go.

This is a great opportunuty for some mining company to earn a good reputation. Fortunes can still be made by being honest and honoring a contract - I know an honest car mechanic who had so much business he had to stop accepting new customers. No reason it can't translate to the mining world.

We know that mining, like growth, is inevitable. Let's see that it's done correctly.

45. Comment by Chris P. (#2069) � January 16,2007 @ 1:57PM

Jamie Sturgess better hope I never encounter him in a dark alley...

46. Comment by Dezrtwulf C. (Dezrtwulf) � January 16,2007 @ 1:59PM

Once I read that Jamie Sturgess is the vice president for projects and environment at Augusta Resource Corporation? I didn't have to read one more word.

There is no shortage of copper in America or on the planet for that matter. The copper mines that are active right now provide more than enough copper at a reasonable price negating the need for yet another get-rich-quick open pit China syndrome to be dug. Neither the environment nor the people will benefit and in fact both will suffer enormous and costly negative effects for decades to come if this is allowed.

Our corrupt Forest Service officials aside, this environmental nightmare waiting-to-happen needs to be fought as hard and as long as it takes to keep it from becoming coming a reality.

47. Comment by Dezrtwulf C. (Dezrtwulf) � January 16,2007 @ 2:08PM

44. Comment by aztex 9. -

"Fortunes can still be made by being honest and honoring a contract."

Geezus 9! Who exactly do you think will be the ones to become "rich" off this deal? The common man? The environment? Or just a few owners and stockholders lucky enough to dupe us into allowing this debacle to be pulled off at our expense? I don't foresee any wealth trickling down to anyone other than a few who are more likely than not already wealthy. It certainly isn't worth the few good paying jobs it will provide the area for the 50 or 60 years it'll be in production. And once the copper is all gone 50 or 60 years from now? We won't even be able to find the ones responsible for reneging on their end of the deal.

But we WILL have the wonderful memories left behind in the form of scarred and destroyed land for the next thousand years to remind us.

48. Comment by francis w. (#6565) � January 16,2007 @ 2:39PM

This comment is below your threshold.�

Still waiting for names of some of those industries or business ventures that would produce anything beneficial to society and not have any kind of negative environmental or societal impact that would satisfy the NIMBY's. Just curious. Haven't heard anything but vague generalities instead of answers.

49. Comment by Sonja W. (yesican) � January 16,2007 @ 2:41PM

This comment is below your threshold.�

#27 inboundhunter, you're funny.
For 27 years I've been a part of the mining world due to my husband's career. I've seen things up close & personal because of that. He's a company man, I'm not. So I haven't always agreed with him with regard to mining issues. But I will state I have seen a lot of positive results for the environment over the years. So #27, you may claim it's bull all you would like, I've lived it, you haven't.

50. Comment by francis w. (#6565) � January 16,2007 @ 2:51PM

This comment is below your threshold

35. Pat B. nice story,but it doesn't answer my original question "what industry would be acceptable to the NIMBY's in Arizona?"
41. Joel S. It will be back and is well on its way. Take a look over Safford way. The more demand for copper there is and the higher the price goes, the more people will be coming to mine it. I believe I might have a little time in grade on you as far as living in Arizona goes, unless you're over 70. I remember the industry well and the great lives it provided for those who worked the mines in Miami, Morenci, Bisbee, Ajo, etc.
#42- Karl W. Fine, now name some of those acceptable industries that won't cause any problems for the environment or for society. I understand the premise of all the NIMBY's. They don't want anything coming into their area that might disturb their way of life. Nothing wrong with that. I just want to hear what industries are acceptable. So far, I haven't heard any of them. Is that not a fair question? Sure seems to have pissed some folks off.

51. Comment by aztex 9. (#6493) � January 16,2007 @ 3:06PM

Well, Dezertwulf, this is still a capitalist society - of course the money will be made by the mining company. They'd be putting up the capital and doing the work, right?

Read my entire post - I said they should face dire consequences if the terms of the contract are not followed - in stages beginning immediately. But if the terms are followed, and they show faithful stewardship by leaving the land restored, I'm just saying that they would (deservedly) get a lot more contracts, and the scarred and devastated land you mention might become a thing of the past.

I guess what it comes down to is I'm thinking, "Wouldn't it be nice if they honor their contract and leave the land looking as if they've never been here," while you're thinking "It'll never happen - leopards don't change their spots."

And between the two of us, you're probably right. I'm gathering from other posts that this particular company doesn't have a very environmentally friendly track record.

I'm just sayin' "What if . . ."

52. Comment by sc w. (prodesert) � January 16,2007 @ 3:11PM

to answer a question brought up by proponents of the mine. "What kind of industry would be acceptable to the NIMBYs?" The very sustainable $ 2.5 billion tourism industry well-documented at https://www.azstarnet.com/business/163427

Unfortunately 90+ % of our riparian habitat has already been decimated. Guess who has played a big role in this permanent damage. What do you want do to do? Ruin the last little bit left for such a tiny benefit so a few can profit? Go dig a hole in some place where no one gives a damn, not here!

53. Comment by sc w. (prodesert) � January 16,2007 @ 3:13PM

oh yeah, in case some folks missed it from #3 above.

https://www.scenicsantaritas.org/
--- sign the petition.

54. Comment by francis w. (#6565) � January 16,2007 @ 4:29PM

Down This comment is below your threshold.�

#52- and what does that tourist industry produce that is beneficial to anyone other than the demand for places for the tourists to stay, roads for them to drive on and pollutions that naturally follows people who come here? Arizona's huge tourist industry has a very strong negative impact on our highways and our air, although it does bring in a lot of money. Nothing is free. That's the simple point I've been trying to make through all these posts. Anything that brings in money is going to have some negative effect on our society, environment or way of life.

55. Comment by inboundhunter .. (inboundhunter) � January 16,2007 @ 4:30PM

Comment # 49 Sonya W , I have seen what the mines have distroyed since 1967. Dead Cattle from contaminated wells, the Wild horses behind Green valley are gone.

56. Comment by Myra J. (dene) � January 16,2007 @ 4:41PM

Again mining is a boom and bust economy. Over the years mining has done a lot of damage in Arizona. Drive up to Globe and Miami and take a look. Then again a shorter trip to what use to be Mageeville South of Tucson.

In the long run scenic value and tourism is the pot of gold. Had concerned citizens have set back on their rear ends and let the mining industry have their way The Grand Canyon would have been ravaged several times over in years past.

#19 Sonja the mining companies do hire environmental experts (not to be confused with environmentalists) to skirt the laws.

57. Comment by inboundhunter .. (inboundhunter) � January 16,2007 @ 4:49PM

Comment 50 Francis W, Ajo Arizona, That town was run and destroyed by PD. You cannot drink the water there, a total welfare town, Ajo is not even incorporated, they have no mayor , no city council, Snowbirds and the Bp Keep Ajo alive. Marenci has been a ghost town for about ten years now, bad water bad schools, however the mine is reopening, and new suckers will work there living in Company provided homes buying grocerys from the company store, great place! Miami is a **** hole, terrible housing, bad water. Bisbee, now hippie infested, bad water, bad schools. I cannot name a totally clean industry, but regardless of that, we do not need this new mine and what it will bring with it and what it will leave behind when the copper runs out.

58. Comment by inboundhunter .. (inboundhunter) � January 16,2007 @ 5:03PM

Comment #54 Francis W, Well at least the tourist leaves without digging big holes in the landscape, they also do not **** in our drinking water.

59. Comment by Myra J. (dene) � January 16,2007 @ 5:05PM

#54 Francis I haven't seen any tourists with scrapers and backhoes ripping our mountains apart.

Let's see tourists buy art, antiques, jewelery, food, stay the winter which means they pay rent or lease, visit our museums, bird watch, they pretty much use most services in Tucson.

60. Comment by inboundhunter .. (inboundhunter) � January 16,2007 @ 5:14PM

Comment #51 Aztec 9, Would be nice, but it can not be done. Besides it would cost the investors way to much to even try and restore the land they have destroyed, Where would they get the native plants?

61. Comment by Sonja W. (yesican) � January 16,2007 @ 5:15PM

This comment is below your threshold.�

It's so typical to be black & white about this issue, but in truth there are shades of gray here. Yes, certain mining companies haven't been good caretakers of the land, there is no doubt about that. But to lump all of the mining industry into one pile is just plain wrong. Again I will state there are many mining companies now that work hard to bring the land back to once that it was before they began their operations.
Many of the old mining towns are for the most part not very great places to live in due to mining, as mentioned above in post #57. Today that would never be allowed, new rules, new regulations have seen to that & it's a very good thing.
Nothing ever stays the same, our world is in constant motion, & as we learn from past mistakes, we then can either make changes for the good or revert back to old ways. Mining companies are having to do just that...make changes to restore land to what it was before they came.
I can not begin to tell you how many times I heard of what is called an "envorinmental incident" which when it happens at any one mining site, things darn near come to a halt until it is investgated, cleaned up & reported to the government. Then MORE checks are put in place to see that it never happens again. The times, they are a changin...

62. Comment by Myra J. (dene) � January 16,2007 @ 5:36PM

Over the years past people settled in Arizona for health reasons. Our warm clean dry air was recommended for tuberculosis, and rheumatoid patients. Now we in Arizona are threatened by our environment. Save The Santa Ritas!

#53 sc w. (prodesert) I signed your petition.

63. Comment by d,h,a .. (d,h,a) � January 16,2007 @ 6:05PM

Board of Supervisors voted it down at today's meeting. Hopefully the state and feds will hear the message....

64. Comment by Heart A. (Heart Attack) � January 16,2007 @ 6:27PM

This comment is below your threshold.�

#61 I agree, but then, typically there are shades of gray about everything!

65. Comment by Larry N. (humphrey) � January 16,2007 @ 6:32PM

Just google 'mining water pollution'.
There are many pros and cons to mines. I'd want a lot of scrutiny for this problem. If we fail to watch this one Tucson could become the 'love canal' for the nation. Google that one too.

66. Comment by Joe j. (We Be Tucson) � January 16,2007 @ 6:38PM

#61 Copper Mining is polluting and is old technology, it is time to move on as the times they are a changin...

67. Comment by Heart A. (Heart Attack) � January 16,2007 @ 6:50PM

This comment is below your threshold.

68. Comment by Greg M. (*gmoney*) � January 16,2007 @ 6:56PM

The real problem is we voted for our leaders in office to express our views but once they get in office the lobbyists or big businesses in America pay them off, to allow there financial goals to proceed without any input from the people and claim it is for our own good. So until we get off our @$$ and do something about this, it will be politics as usual and the environment will pay the price!

69. Comment by Ruben G. (2ndminer) � January 16,2007 @ 7:02PM

#17
I Agree. We don�t need another mine in the Santa Rita's. I was referring to the comment number nine made, about all mining being irresponsible.

70. Comment by Kimberly C. (kimmus122) � January 16,2007 @ 7:18PM

What bothers me the most is that most of our elected officials are not listening to our pleas. I bet if you went door to door, 75% of the people you asked would be against the mine. That should tell us something.

71. Comment by sc w. (prodesert) � January 16,2007 @ 7:22PM

Regarding the argument that we need copper to use electricity: Aluminum wiring needs to be sized only one gauge unit larger to achieve equal conductivity. Based on our too-common practice of filling up landfills with single-use Alum. cans, we needn't look too far for a satisfactory substitute. There is already talk of "mining" old landfills for their copious alum. stores.

72. Comment by Kimberly C. (kimmus122) � January 16,2007 @ 7:24PM

In response to #67:
�I believe the reason no one can give you a history lesson on the responsible mines of today is because they don't exist. If you would be inclined to offer me a different view, I would gladly appreciate it. I'd rather not risk the sanctity of our Santa Ritas for speculation about the future. Promises for the future do not fix the problems of today, and until someone can prove that the can mine without environmental degradation, I say no mines in the Santa Ritas.

73. Comment by Greg M. (*gmoney*) � January 16,2007 @ 7:27PM

Fitz forgot to add a couple of c�s to his cartoon
Calcium Carbonate, Concrete, Cactus as the Arizona Portland Cement Quarry claims and will be in the same area as Rosemont in Davidson Canyon off of Scenic Hwy 83.
How many more C's can us in Arizona come up with?

74. Comment by Kimberly C. (kimmus122) � January 16,2007 @ 7:33PM

CRAP- that's what we will be left with if we don't stop destroying our landscape, watershed, and ecosystems.

75. Comment by Heart A. (Heart Attack) � January 16,2007 @ 7:37PM

This comment is below your threshold.�

Aluminum is mined just like copper. Does it really matter if you are mining a natural deposit or a landfill? It is the same mess either way, and most landfills are near cities! Besides aluminum is way too inefficient to use for most applications. For instance in many factory installations they use hanging aluminum buss bars for hooking up the various machinery. Those aluminum conductors are silver plated to increase their efficiency! Silver is also mined. Also scrap aluminum is currently approximately half the price of scrap copper, if it was a viable alternative, do you think copper would be in such high demand?

Everything is mined or touched by mining, its amazing the number of short sighted people on this forum. Mining is not optional, it's only optional today!

76. Comment by MJ R. (Sailor50) � January 16,2007 @ 7:37PM

For those of you who have faith in the EPA, well ho ho ho! I've seen the EPA in action at the Globe High School, and my impression was that its employees were holding public meetings because they were required to. It was obvious that the prejudice was for the development of the Carlota Mine. Fortunately, economics made that one bite the dust.

77. Comment by Heart A. (Heart Attack) � January 16,2007 @ 7:48PM

Actually Kimberly I said I appreciated the history lesson, and we should learn by those examples. Not to totally avoid progress, but to learn to progress responsibly.

Earlier somebody gave a perfect example of the Kennecott Cordero Rojo mine in Wyoming, which is a shining example of how to do it right! I realize you may not have seen it, but it is real nonetheless!

There is no acid pre-test for anything! Each and every single action is but one succeeding test. It is a test we must pass!

78. Comment by Heart A. (Heart Attack) � January 16,2007 @ 7:51PM

This comment is below your threshold.�

I just heard they were drilling at the Carlota, 2 weeks ago!

79. Comment by sc w. (prodesert) � January 16,2007 @ 8:12PM

Heart Attack: your logic and assumptions in response #75 make me worry that you have had a few strokes as well. Is digging up landfill aluminum as bad as mining the Santa Ritas (hint - recycling an alum. can uses 1/20 the fossil fuel as mining the raw ore. and produces none of the metallurgical extraction by-products). Extracting it from landfills is a function of digging up what we just buried and running it through a mechanical sorting process and starting to fully recycle what we throw away today. A decrease in effiiciency in Al vs Cu can be worked into the equation. it is not "way too inefficient to use for most applications"...its just not quite as cheap and convenient as doing it the old fashioned way. That Cu is more costly than Al is hardly a concrete determining factor on whether or not its physical properties are so superior that it can't be compensated for. Once again, stand back and calculate the total Cu gain - 5% of US needs for 20 yrs = .05X20yrs =1 yrs worth of CU. No thanks!

80. Comment by Heart A. (Heart Attack) � January 16,2007 @ 8:25PM

This comment is below your threshold.

81. Comment by francis w. (#6565) � January 16,2007 @ 8:39PM

This comment is below your threshold.

As we all have heard, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we've also heard that beauty is only skin deep. The same is true whether referring to all things in nature that were created by whomever you may wish to believe; God, Allah, Gaia, The Creator or "the Big Bang". Who or whatever created it also created us or allowed us to evolve, and in the process he didn't give us the speed, strength, ability to withstand natures forces, to fly like the birds or to swim like the fishes do, but he did give us brains, imaginations, curiosity, ambition and a will to survive against all the forces in nature that could destroy us.

Man's own curiosity and will to survive brought him to find and use that which the earth provides in order to thrive and prosper as a dominant, if not the dominant, force among the living creatures on our planet. For man to ignore what is under the thin skin of the earth and leave it's natural resources in the ground would signal the end of the civilization in a few generations.

We take and use what is there to improve the lot of our species. Once we have taken too much or once we no longer know how best to use what we have, we shall probably perish. However, as long as we continue to search for newer ways of doing that which we must do to survive, then survive we will. We have only scratched the surface of the earths body in our search for the minerals, metals, water and elements we can and will use before its rich supply of resources is depleted. Necessity is the mother of invention and as those things which we use now become too scarce, new substitutes will be found and developed as they become more comparatively economical.
By leaving our natural wealth of resources in the ground we would only become a dying civilization.

If open and undeveloped lands are worth more to those who would farm them or build on them, than they are to the miners who would mine them, then let them buy them and make them productive. The surface of the earth is ever changing and if a beautiful mountain is turned into a mine that produces beautiful lives for many people, then go for the mine. The worst example of land waste and erosion that we can think of is the Grand Canyon and it is a beauty to behold. I'm sure it looked very different a few milleniums ago, but we like it the way it is today.

82. Comment by Kimberly C. (kimmus122) � January 16,2007 @ 9:00PM

You are right, Francis, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I by no means find a mine which pollutes groundwater, destroys mountains that are the results of millions of years of ecological processes, and wreaks havoc on the plant and animals communities to be beautiful. Again, what do you consider a "beautiful life for many people?" I would say that taking away the beauty of the Santa Ritas doesn't constitute the beauty of green pieces of paper in anyone's pocket. Show me one beautiful thing man has created that even comes close to the beauty of the Grand Canyon.

83. Comment by Kimberly C. (kimmus122) � January 16,2007 @ 9:17PM

Wow. I wish I could post pictures on this thing. I'd like to get a vote on who find the Kennecott Cordero Rojo Mine to be beautiful...

84. Comment by Dezrtwulf C. (Dezrtwulf) � January 16,2007 @ 9:39PM

You can talk and talk and talk to the anti-environment-at-any-cost crowd but one thing is for sure and for certain and that is they will never hear one damn thing you say.

How many people here have said that in Arizona, less than 10% of our original riparian habitat and pristine areas remain? Less than 10% remains because of the irreversable damage that's been done to our environment by companies exactly like this one that wants to now go into a portion of that remaining 10% and mine the **** out of it.

There are people here who say "Aw shucks let's give them a chance, this might be THE company that gets it right and gets it done." Or, "Hey,we'll never know if they'll do what they say as far as clean-up and reclamation goes unless we give them a chance." It's amazing to me just how many people are so open and receptive to taking that chance with the tiny bit of our ecological treasures that remain. Treasures that at one time were so abundant in Arizona.

The fact that so many of you are actually in favor of gambling with what little bit we have managed to save from the bull-dozers and the smoke-stacks is astounding to me. Even with the stakes being so incredibly high, some of you are completely willing to possibly lose all that is left of what we held on to for your children and your children's children.

This begs the question. What the hell is wrong with you people? Look around you for God's sake!

Can anyone point to one place where man has gone in and china syndromed (open pit mined) the land, or cut down practically all the available trees, or dumped poison into our riparian water ways, our ground water, or our recreational waters, leaving the fish poisoned and inedible, or chewed open entire sides of our most beautiful mountains, or pumped hundreds of millions of metric tons of who-the-hell-knows-what into the air, and then turned around and cleaned it all up? Cleaned it all right up and made it all sparkley new and pristine just like it was before they got their hands on it? Of course you can't.

Because no company anywhere or anytime has ever fulfilled their empty promises they sold us in the beginning. None have ever actually returned the land to what it was originally. None have ever removed all the poisons they used to contaminate our ground, our water, or our skies, while their company was there. And again, so many of you are actually willing to risk what little bit of irreplacable and finite resources we have left because "we need copper tubing at Home Depot." Or, "Because copper may run out in hundred years and we've got to be ready for that?" Or because your family member "had a job in the same industry and life was good"?

To that I say Bullsh*t!!!!

85. Comment by Myra J. (dene) � January 16,2007 @ 10:28PM

#76 MJR.(Sailor50)

EPA = Environmental Pollution Agency

That's what victims in superfund sites call them.

Return to Home