Save the Scenic Santa Rita’s yesterday released a copy of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Nov. 7 letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Augusta Resource Corporation’s Rosemont mine proposal water permit.
According to SSSR, this is a “dramatic and potentially devastating blow to Augusta Resource Corporation’s proposal to build the Rosemont mine, a massive open-pit copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains just south of Tucson.”
You can read the letter here. A snippet from SSSR:
In a Nov. 7 letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA recommended that the proposed Rosemont copper mine should not receive a permit that would allow the company to dump potentially toxic mine wastes into area waterways.
After completing a comprehensive and detailed analysis, EPA concluded that Rosemont’s proposals to mitigate the mine’s severe and permanent damage to area water supplies are “scientifically flawed” and “grossly inadequate,” and advised the Corps of Engineers that the project “should not be permitted as proposed.”
The EPA’s recommendation to deny Rosemont’s permit application is a potentially devastating blow to the mining project because EPA has veto authority over the permit, which would be issued by the Corps of Engineers only if the proposed mine meets Clean Water Act standards. The permit is required before construction could begin on the mile-wide, half-mile deep open pit mine.
US Congressman Raul Grijalva chimed in this morning with his own statement in support of SSSR and the EPA finding, and pointing out a story published last year in the Tucson Weekly.
Washington, D.C. — Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva today highlighted the recent Environmental Protection Agency finding that the proposed Rosemont Mine should not be given a Clean Water Act permit to operate in the Santa Rita Mountains near Tucson. Grijalva has publicly agreed with Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, a local advocacy group, that not enough scientific analysis has been done to justify building the mine.
Save the Scenic Santa Ritas in a Nov. 20 press release publicized a letter from the EPA to the Army Corps of Engineers, dated Nov. 7, in which the agency declares that “degradation [from the mine] would be a substantial and unacceptable impact to aquatic resources of national importance, including the ‘Outstanding Waters’ of Davidson Canyon and Cienega Creek.” The EPA recommends the Army Corps not issue the Clean Water Act permit that Rosemont’s parent company, Augusta Resource, needs to operate the mine.
“I’ve said all along, and I’m not alone, that good science should be more important in this decision than slick marketing brochures and political spin,” Grijalva said. “Augusta Resource tried to manipulate elections, gin up a phony local support campaign, and paper over serious environmental risks with a big advertising budget. Thankfully the EPA has done the hard and thorough research Augusta has tried to prevent, and the results are as clear as it gets. This mine would be an ecological disaster and violate the Clean Water Act. If Augusta has better data, let’s see it.”
As the Tucson Weekly reported last year in a feature on the history of the proposed mining site:
Not only was [Augusta] touting a ‘21st century mine,’ but it also fueled a cutting-edge spin campaign, with at least two local public-relations firms on its payroll at any given time. It regularly bought sponsorships on the local public-broadcasting station, and inundated Tucson’s business community with the message that this mine would prove a perfect antidote to hard times. Augusta went so far as to fashion a surreal logo with a pigtailed little girl gazing toward the sky. . . . Later, the company began targeting areas of town with letters seemingly signed by neighbors who supported the mine. The effort suffered a setback, though, when it turned out that the letters had actually been written by Augusta’s in-house PR crew.
“The EPA has done the most careful, substantive and meaningful scientific analysis to date of the mine’s potential impacts,” Grijalva said. “This should be the standard as this process moves forward. From now on, science is going to trump spin and substance is going to trump salesmanship. If Augusta wants to move forward on that basis, let’s get started. Otherwise Southern Arizona needs to move on to better economic ideas.”
This article appears in Nov 21-27, 2013.
Why is this idiot Grijalva still in office??? Are you people in his district fucking brain dead??
great point, holdthispair. that’s some solid debatin’.
stop this disaster of a mine. it is foolish to believe any claims of ecological responsibility and significant economic impact from the mining company. they have a bit of a track record. we will be left with a hole and poisoned water, permanently. if you haven’t noticed, there are almost no running waterways left in SE AZ.
Actually, this mining company has never operated a mine, Augusta Resource is a speculator, not an experienced mining operator. An important note is the SSSR press release concerns the moribund stock price for Augusta Resource shares, now flirting with junk bond status. If shares dip below a buck, the fat lady may be singing sooner rather than later.
EPA holds the final hand and this latest news is good news to those of us who have been vocal in our opposition to Rosemont Mine.
EPA and Communist Raul Grijalva and his army of idiots are at it again. Funny how all the people Augusta has hired for this project are qualified and nothing but professional. To bad Obama and his ilk aren’t ,then again what dictator was qualified before they destroyed a country.
Of course Grijalva is against the Rosemont Project – it will create well paying jobs, generate a great tax base and make southern Arizona better – so good in fact that it will lift up our area and we might not need the hand of “Big Brother.” This would not work for the Democrats who need starving welfare types to keep them in office.
He must toe the party line – “no real jobs for Americans (unless they are subsidized green energy).” The Keystone Pipeline is another great example.
The Democrats use flawed (intentionally) science to support EPA edicts that all development and true growth must be stopped i.e. no more coal. How long can we suffer these fools?
How flawed is Augusta’s science when it outright lies and says that its activities will not affect the water table? Every other major copper mining operation on the planet degrades its environment and yet people are expected to believe this one will be the exception? Your corporate snake oil might be sold more easily to a less-educated populace, assuming Augusta hasn’t ruined their land already.
Yes, we need jobs. Yes, if it can’t be grown it must be mined. But if those jobs and mines come at the cost of our land and thus our children’s future, then the ultimate cost outweighs any temporary economic benefit.
Man, Come’On…I respect you but you can’t be the Water’Boy for Obama and his Obstruction of Jobs in out Great Nation . Look at all the ‘Titan II Missile Sites’ … that were there… in Pima County and Pinal….what did they hurt? They protected our Country for years… I know, I worked in them…and then ‘ Someone decided to De-Commission them ‘ …just as Obama is ‘ De-Commissioning our Generals. What’s Up with That Mr. Grijalva?
Actually, the ecological disaster is all the people moving illegally into the country.
I’m not a big fan of Rosemont, but like everyone else on this board, I use copper in my daily life. If Davidson Canyon and Cienega Creek are waters of “national importance” then is there really anywhere in the United States where the EPA *would* allow a copper mine to be built? Is the plan going forward to just import all of our copper from countries with no environmental regulation?
Don’t worry bslap, as the water runs out here in the Southwest (thanks to global warming) and Tucson empties (the most affluent bugging out first)…
there will be PLENTY of copper in them, thar’ hills — all of those empty McMansions will be a treasure trove of metals and building materials for the 20 or 30 thousand souls that this region could possibly support without cheap petroleum…
Sadly, ChetDude is proof America has lost the war on drugs. How else could someone be so delusional?
I can assure you that many, many in central Africa, Indonesia and the Andean Highlands of South America are happy that ChetDude and his ilk think as they do, as they have good jobs mining copper. These are great jobs that we are exporting because of this type of illogical thinking.
Don’t think that the mining companies are in these developing countries because of lower wages or lax environmental laws, because neither is true. Wages are similar to the US in Peru, while in Chile they are higher than here and the environmental laws equally rigid and truly enforced. In central Africa, the wages are lower, but the productivity is so poor that more workers are needed to do the same job. No savings in that.
Wakeup Tucson; bring back mining and the many benefits associated with developing our mineral resources. Vote conservative in 2014 and throw the anti-development Democrats into the long unemployment lines they have so skillfully created.
A few questions for Bisbee Boy:
1. If there are so many copper mines already open around the world, why the dire predictions of running out of the metal from the industry? And why, other than jobs, should we open another one here if your assertion about copper mines is correct?
2. If these worldwide mines are similar in wage and environmental laws, then why does the industry complain so vociferously about US laws, citing them as the reason they have been unable to open a mine here?
3. If conservatives are so pro-business, how is it that, according to you, virtually no mineral resources are being developed here when conservatives have run this nation for over 30 years?
Explain these paradoxes to us, sir. But do yourself and the world a favor and remove the partisan blinders first.
Pleased to enlighten you. First, let me note that I have worked in the natural resource industry on a World-wide basis for more than 50 years and I continue to serve as a consultant to companies developing mines in Africa, two South America countries as well as the construction of a gas pipeline in Peru. Currently, I am in Antofagasta, Chile as a part of a project review team. I know the business and the challenges faced in many countries. Now to the answers for your questions:
1). World demand for copper is growing exponentially. After iron, copper is the most important metal in construction and the lifting of living standards. Some of the most populous nations are earth are on the road to higher living standards. Thus, huge amounts of copper will be needed. In any event, the predictions of running out of this vital metal come from outside of the industry by those who see the increase in World population as a threat. Copper deposits are not scarce on a World basis; what are scarce are political environments where they can be reasonably developed. Politically, the US is a high risk country for any natural resource development.
Why should we open more mines, you ask, well the true wealth of any nation is in the basic industries. Far more than just jobs flow from new mines, but the enhancement of local and regional infrastructure as well. The add-value jobs of refining and fabrication of tubing, sheeting, etc. are vital to our economic structure and when done in America by American labour with domestically produced materials, the multiplier effect of additional jobs is enormous.
The more domestically produced copper/iron/manganese etc., the better for the whole country. Open more mines – ABSOLUTLY.
2). The manner in which the US laws are arbitrarily applied is a job killer. The recent EPA over reach on coal and the hugely expensive delays on the Keystone Pipeline are excellent examples. In Chile, from discovery to operation, a large open-pit copper mine will require seven to ten years. Here in the US, because of the flexible way the EPA and or other agencies may apply a seemingly simple rule can and does add tens of years to the time required to receive the construction permits. The costs associated with this type of useless delay kills projects and this a strategy commonly employed by the anti-American Sierra Club/Green Peace types. It is now being employed against the Rosemont and Resolution copper projects in Arizona.
3).Most of the answer to this question is in the above, but the last 30 years include eight years of Bill Clinton as well as overcoming the difficulties of the endless law suits against any project in the liberal courts filled with Johnson and Carter appointees at the request of such as the Sierra Club and Green Peace. This coupled with the treasonous withdrawal of huge tracts of public lands – rich in coal/oil/gas/minerals – from development by the loonies in the White House. In truth, the first president Bush was not truly a conservative and his son had too many Democrats in congress to do what was truly needed to re-vitalize American industry – the same Democrats that brought us the 2007/2008 recession with their “fair housing” lunacy.
Vote conservative and bring back America.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. FWIW, I’m just a concerned citizen, not a member of any organization or group, Sierra Club or otherwise. In the interests of full disclosure, are you paid to consult for the Rosemont project?
At the risk of being accused of splitting hairs, I’d like to focus on a few of the statements you made, the first about political environments where mines can be “reasonably” developed. This is a standard mantra of resource capitalists who encounter wage or environmental laws they consider too onerous, threatening them with reduced profitability. In other words, if they can’t set the agenda via lobbyists or hired thugs, they’ll take their toys to a friendlier sandbox. I can’t imagine how this attitude/business practice could possibly spark resentment or resistance among people who live on and around the resources desired by said mining companies, can you?
Additionally, your description of US environmental laws and their application is entirely one-sided and self-serving. While I am no fan of the government, I recognize when it performs useful functions, one of which would be preventing environmental catastrophes amongst its citizenry. One of the main reasons it takes “tens of years” to receive the proper permits is that they are repeatedly denied on simple scientific grounds until the proper ciphers can be placed within the local political establishment to create a more “reasonable” environment for their passage. An expensive process, to be sure, but don’t go looking for sympathy just because your chosen industry is forced to pay off myriad corrupt officials and lawyers to achieve the desired outcome in a locale’. Again, I can’t see how this could ever, under any stretch of the imagination, stir resentment…
It’s a shame you can’t get past the liberal/conservative illusion. Bill Clinton gave tens of thousands of free acres on public lands to mining companies during his tenure, including (as you must be aware) a good portion of the Saguaro National Park West near the old Silverbell mine. Mining is allowed, it’s just not “reasonable” enough to do so yet because of those pesky humans living in the area who insist on keeping their wells usable. (Odd, I know-why don’t they just buy Perrier with their welfare checks and stop bothering those stalwart, blameless mining executives you’re paid to consult for?)
You’re right about those damn Democrats bringing us the 2008 crash, but it had nothing to do with “fair housing” and everything to do with crooked bankers knowingly bundling and selling bad loans to multiple investors until the house of cards collapsed. Our pensions have still not recovered-I bet you’re one of those who actually believe their investment counselors when they tell you it was all the fault of those damned old people outliving the insurance adjustors’ estimates, aren’t you? And it was all enabled by Democrats, who worked directly with the GOP to kill off the Glass-Stegall Act with the Gramm/Leach/Bliley bill in 1999. Those conservatives you seem to think so highly of sold you and this nation down the river years ago hand-in-hand with the liberals. Too bad you’re unable to see it.
Finally, election integrity will bring back America. Well, that and accountability for the rats who stole us blind. That includes Obama, the Bushes, the Clintons and all the Bernie Madoffs who have yet to be exposed. Enjoy Chile-I understand the Pinochet Suites are quite comfortable…for those with the money, at any rate. I’m sure you’ll fit right in.
RJ,
I am not, in any way connected to the Rosemont mine or the parent company. I do not even know any of the players. It has been more than 25 years since I have worked on a US based project and while I have worked with Canadian companies during this time, it was all gold related
I agree, the choice of the word “reasonable” was a poor one. My intent was to suggest that the regulations be sufficiently protective of the environment during development, operation and, most importantly, during closure, while still allowing for responsible natural resource development. In general, the US regs meet these criteria and any mining company I work for does/would meet them. There are however, countries that have what I would call “unreasonable” rules in that they are so rigid that they preclude mining/oil and gas recovery or so poorly written/enforced that they fall short of truly protecting the environment and people.
There are, of course individuals and companies that take advantage of weakness in laws or their lax enforcement. I see this often in developing countries, but not just in the natural resource business, but in timber harvesting, agricultural applications – farming and livestock, development of commercial and apartment buildings. I know of no US or Canadian listed companies which do this, as the embassy staffs keep a close watch on the companies that call the stock markets in these countries home. The real problems at this time, come with some private companies from China – not Chinese State-owned, some Brazilian companies, not all and Indian groups as well as a myriad of local companies or individuals in most countries.
World-wide, responsible natural resource companies engage whole heartedly in sustainable development projects that lift up the locals in many ways and I am very proud to look at some I have personally directed as long as 20 years ago in west Africa and more recently the jungles of Peru and how the lives of so many are markedly better and continue to improve. This is very much like my own childhood, where the mining companies filled the gaps left by government during the depression and made Bisbee a great place to grow up and to be educated in. This is the model I use.
It is the seemingly endless use of the courts that makes the US an unfriendly environment, not the science. Oft times the science is debated in the courts with lawyers and judges who haven’t a clue what is correct taking decisions well beyond their knowledge base. Thus things end up being interminably delayed. I take offence at the suggestion that the responsible players in my chosen industry pay off corrupt officials and lawyers. This does not happen within the many companies that I have worked. I have seen companies abandoned millions in sunk costs because it became apparent that only through bribery can the project be completed. There are many ethical people in this business and the vast majority does not nor will not engage in corrupt activities. However, refer to my note above about the bad actors in this business.
Time to go to work; I will address your other points in the evening when I return to my three star hotel. I am not quite privileged enough to enjoy the “Pinochet Suits.” In fact I don’t know that I have even heard of them before. I am however, a great fan of Pinochet and applaud what he did for Chile, which was a difficult, messy, but necessary task.
Pinochet Suites….irony is truly wasted on you, isn’t it? If you applaud Pinochet, then you are a fascist masquerading as a human being; someone who justifies torture, murder and the overthrow of democratically-elected governments in the name of profit. Or perhaps just a “reasonable” business climate. There may well be ethical people in the mining business but you, sir, are not one of them. You may not enslave miners for subsistence wages, fire, beat or kill them when they attempt to unionize or otherwise object to their conditions or knowingly dump mercury into the local streams but your claim that other companies can’t or don’t do business in that fashion is a bald-faced lie. Here is a no-doubt incomplete list of articles from the past few years addressing those very issues worldwide, many within Chile itself.
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/list.ph…
Feel free to attack the source(s) all you like; the facts are indisputable. You are an apologist for fascism and corporate avarice as evidenced by your own words above. I am not opposed to mining, recognizing its vital necessity to the modern world and its components. I am, however, virulently opposed to exploitation, bribery, theft, murder and the wholesale rape of environments for profit, all of which are utilized by the majority of the largest players in the mining industry (Barrick, Rio Tinto, Massey, et al) as a standard business practice, your hollow protests to the contrary notwithstanding
“…bad actors” indeed; the only bad acting here is your transparent attempt at denial.
RJ,
I think I found you hot button. I was in Chile for a while under Allende and he was as democratically elected as was Hugo Chavez in his last two terms. I lived in Venezuela during one of his periods as well.
I still admire Pinochet, as do so many here. I quite like Fujimori in Peru as well. Both men of destiny that providence placed in their countries at a pivotal time.
I suggest you leave the fiction section of the internet when you look for valid information on the companies you have noted. I have consulted for the first two on your list and they are good corporate citizens, though often maligned by the anti-development lefties.
Thank you for your opinion and while I disagree with your point of view, I will continue to work to assure that the metals or energy resources you and others need are available and do so in a responsible manner, as I have for these 55 years now.
Yes, genocidal tyrants are indeed a hot button of mine. And Hugo Chavez received more votes than George Bush or Obama ever did (or Pinochet for that matter), and in far fairer elections. Was he a genocidal tyrant? I honestly don’t know, though I do know no evidence has been ever presented to suggest that he rounded up and executed stadiums full of political opponents and/or indigenous peoples as happened in Chile.
Your definition of a good corporate citizen and mine are certainly divergent. Barrick and Rio Tinto’s actions outlined in the links at the website are abhorrent, illegal and wrong-it does not surprise me that you defend them as you already admit to taking their money. Their reputations became spotless with you as soon as their checks cleared. I’m sure you’ll continue in your chosen profession with a clear conscience for the same reason.
WOW RJ,
I think you have seen one too many Rodger Moore movies given your readiness to believe those supposedly true and independent news articles. I have no problem working for the mining companies discussed and others that the anti-development types condemn. I hope you do not hold the same animosity toward Apple, IBM, Honda and others who use labor in developing countries that provide you and I with the things we need and use.
In any event, hope that your Thanksgiving is good. Mine will be spent in the jungles of southern Peru where I will meet with the mayors of several small villages along a gas pipeline route. They are being terrorized by the remnants of the Senderó Luminoso, which is in part financed by the Venezuelan Government and narcotraffickers. The legacy of good old Hugo Chavez lives on.
No, I’ve seen too much of the avarice in human nature and the aftermath of mining activities. And if by “animosity”, you mean that I urge the firms your named to stop utilizing companies who exploit or enslave their workforce to build those handy devices, I stand proudly guilty of that charge.
I send you the same holiday wishes, despite our differences. Out of curiosity, has the gas company offered any protection (private security, for lack of a better term) to the terrorized villages you referenced? And if so, have they offered the same protection to villages which aren’t adjacent to their pipeline? If not, the legacy of Standard Oil lives on as well.
RJ,
In as much as local security is provided by the Peruvian National Police or army, by long-standing convention, I must work the police and/or army. Armed, private security forces are rare here, which in my opinion is a good thing. Thus I do lobby the Ministry of Interior to work regionally, which they are doing in a much improved manner. A single, secure corridor is not a long-term solution.
Peru, like many developing countries is plagued by a lack of a strong governmental presence in most of the essential services. So when something is desperately needed, the companies work in a coordinated manner to bring the services in for all, not just a few. I also work with the Ministry of Health to assist in improved health services and the Ministry of Education to aid in improving the education system through cooperative efforts which include the communities in our areas of interest. For something to be truly sustainable, the many stakeholds all need to be involved wherever possible. A complex, but very rewarding process when the plans reach fruition.
Raul Grijalva. A walking ecological disaster.