Quotes from Arizona Daily Star:
In his 37-page decision, Soto hammered almost exclusively at the Forest Service’s approval of Hudbay’s plan to dump mine waste rock and tailings from its 955-acre pit onto 2,447 acres of nearby public land on the Santa Ritas’ eastern slopes.
Opponents’ lawsuits argued that only public lands directly above valuable mineral deposits are covered by the federal 1872 mining law’s definition of mining rights.
Soto wrote in his decision that for Hudbay to gain access to valuable copper, molybdenum and silver from the pit, the company would need to extract about 1.2 billion tons of economically worthless waste rock and about 700 million tons of mine tailings.
The Forest Service's primary error in this case was to accept, without question, that Hudbay's unpatented mining claims on those 2,447 acres were valid, thereby allowing them to be used for placement of the waste rock and tailings, he wrote.
Source.
Showing posts with label mining. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mining. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 07, 2019
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Keystone pipeline presents environmental quandary
 |
| This was a boreal forest. |
Mining proponents point out that the tar sands oil will be mined even without the pipeline. Trains would carry tar sands oil if Obama denies the pipeline. But trains are (apparently) more risky than pipelines in terms of frequency of spills (what about size of spills?). So not building the pipeline could actually result in worse environmental consequences. Catch 22?
What if....instead of building the keystone pipeline, we reduced the equivalent amount of energy (negawatts) by guaranteeing loans or rebates or tax incentives on geothermal systems. Solar panels on roofs are nice, but electric technology has a shorter lifespan, whereas geothermal heating and cooling is a truly long-term infrastructure investment. Cutting off supply only works if we reduce demand.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Rosemont Mine and the Scientific Method
In today's Arizona Star Opinion Section, Dr. Ostercamp discusses recent hydrologic research about whether the proposed Rosemont Mine would affect surrounding groundwater levels, and how much.
The upshot? "More research is needed." A classic scientific result that, in this case, sides with environmentalists' opposition to the proposed copper mine. I was interested that this result shows how science often works differently from how most people think. Instead of generating facts to aid society's decisions, normal science (and scientists) thrive on ambiguity, controversy, and the unknowability of the world.
I believe that science, as a human institution, should work this way. I am deeply suspicious of any scientific field with easy answers and a "97% consensus". Scientific culture harnesses the creativity, jealousy, and competition inherent in human nature when it is most controversial, when there are a plurality of opinions and accusations. When I hear that, for example, climate change researchers are united behind the IPCC report, I worry that the incentive structure of that field of science has become corrupted; instead of working to prove each other wrong in order to gain fame and fortune, they have all jumped on the same bandwagon to champion their cause.
In the same way that monopolies are bad for capitalism, unified "consensus statements" are bad for science. This is not to say that I disagree with the IPCC's conclusions. In the same way that a monopoly might act in society's interest, the IPCC may well be acting in our best interests. But without dissent and opposing voices there is no guarantee. Of course, one might argue that monopolies can be efficient; scientific consensus is necessary to accept what we know and move on. I agree that arguments and democracy are very inefficient and often only result in stalemate, acrimony, and confusion. Perhaps the "best" way of running an economy or the scientific method is ultimately a political decision?
Politically, science (as I have described it in the first and second paragraphs) often argues for the status quo, because any change is inherently unknowable and the amount or "further research" needed is infinite; we can never comprehend everything. So, in its current manifestation, science plays into the hands of industry when industrial processes are already ongoing: this is why Monsanto's fight for GMOs to be labelled "generally recognized as safe" and widely disseminated is so important. Science would have argued for limitless further testing if GMOs were acknowledged to be a legitimately novel subject of study. Conversely, science plays into the hands of environmentalists whenever new industrial projects are proposed. In the case of the proposed Rosemont Mine, scientists would need to comprehensively understand the geology, hydrology, ecology, and meteorology of the entire Santa Rita mountains, if not the county and beyond, before being able to pass judgement on the effects of the mine.
But what about situations where environmentalists and industry would like to work together to advance some project for the good of society? For example, thinning projects on national forests are badly needed prevent continuing damage to watersheds and ecosystems, as well as human life and property. But what can science say about the best way to thin forests? "Further research is needed..."
The upshot? "More research is needed." A classic scientific result that, in this case, sides with environmentalists' opposition to the proposed copper mine. I was interested that this result shows how science often works differently from how most people think. Instead of generating facts to aid society's decisions, normal science (and scientists) thrive on ambiguity, controversy, and the unknowability of the world.
I believe that science, as a human institution, should work this way. I am deeply suspicious of any scientific field with easy answers and a "97% consensus". Scientific culture harnesses the creativity, jealousy, and competition inherent in human nature when it is most controversial, when there are a plurality of opinions and accusations. When I hear that, for example, climate change researchers are united behind the IPCC report, I worry that the incentive structure of that field of science has become corrupted; instead of working to prove each other wrong in order to gain fame and fortune, they have all jumped on the same bandwagon to champion their cause.
In the same way that monopolies are bad for capitalism, unified "consensus statements" are bad for science. This is not to say that I disagree with the IPCC's conclusions. In the same way that a monopoly might act in society's interest, the IPCC may well be acting in our best interests. But without dissent and opposing voices there is no guarantee. Of course, one might argue that monopolies can be efficient; scientific consensus is necessary to accept what we know and move on. I agree that arguments and democracy are very inefficient and often only result in stalemate, acrimony, and confusion. Perhaps the "best" way of running an economy or the scientific method is ultimately a political decision?
Politically, science (as I have described it in the first and second paragraphs) often argues for the status quo, because any change is inherently unknowable and the amount or "further research" needed is infinite; we can never comprehend everything. So, in its current manifestation, science plays into the hands of industry when industrial processes are already ongoing: this is why Monsanto's fight for GMOs to be labelled "generally recognized as safe" and widely disseminated is so important. Science would have argued for limitless further testing if GMOs were acknowledged to be a legitimately novel subject of study. Conversely, science plays into the hands of environmentalists whenever new industrial projects are proposed. In the case of the proposed Rosemont Mine, scientists would need to comprehensively understand the geology, hydrology, ecology, and meteorology of the entire Santa Rita mountains, if not the county and beyond, before being able to pass judgement on the effects of the mine.
But what about situations where environmentalists and industry would like to work together to advance some project for the good of society? For example, thinning projects on national forests are badly needed prevent continuing damage to watersheds and ecosystems, as well as human life and property. But what can science say about the best way to thin forests? "Further research is needed..."
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Letter of the Week: 1872 Mining Law
Dear Senator,
The 1872 Mining Law needs to be changed. It consistently favors the interests of large, often foreign companies over the interests of local
My family and I are directly affected by dust blowing off the numerous open-pit mines in Pima county, and what really irks me is the thought that my tax dollars are funding this irresponsible exploitation of our God-given natural heritage.
This land is held in trust by our government so that everyone can use it, but when these companies come in with their mines they just use it up. Although we often hear that these mines are creating jobs in our local communities, the reality is that these corporations will leave us high and dry when the minerals run out.
We need an updated mining law that considers the valid interests of local landowners as well as the interests of economic development. I plan to watch your action on this issue as a kind of litmus test for who you really support; is it the local landowners trying to make a living in
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)