The last eight or so remaining readers of the Arizona Daily Star had an exciting Sunday morning on Jan. 19 with the front-page announcement that, inside, the Star would weigh trade-offs and take a stand on whether the Rosemont copper mine down in the Santa Ritas should go forward.
I normally don’t read the Star, but I noticed this as I, in my kindly, wifely way, got all inky ripping off the front-page spadia (that’s what newspaper folk call those annoying ad wrap-arounds) for my husband, who’s one of those eight readers. He admits that the paper is awful, but he cannot start the day without the local paper and he also follows the Cats. Naturally, my breath came fast through the removal of other spadias, then through my kindly, wifely extraction of the comics from deep in the ad heap, and the heap’s immediate transfer to the recycling bin. (This ritual of dissection and disposal while the coffee is brewing makes Sunday mornings special.)
To tell the truth, my suspense was only about how, not what. While Rosemont is indefensible, and I didn’t see how the Star could say otherwise, I’ve been around long enough to know that the paper’s editorial stances—on those occasions when they are not 100 percent poke-your-own-eyes-out lame (domestic abuse must stop!)—are invariably wrong.
I was not disappointed. Tony Davis, the talented environmental reporter who has managed to survive the waves of newsroom cuts, had put together a comprehensive, clear, balanced-but-still-deadly two-page spread on all the issues the mine raises, from the perpetual poisoned lake of avian death to the scope of the 20-year benefit of likely jobs created. I’m holding on to it—it’s a valuable guide to a bad idea that, zombielike, keeps threatening to return. (Actually, the spread doesn’t mention one pressing issue—valley fever and mass soil disturbance. The Jan. 20 issue of The New Yorker happens to include a long, startling piece about the rise of cocci infections in the Southwest and their association with large earthmoving projects.)
Despite this clear articulation of the evidence within its own pages, the Star editorial board still managed to come to the wrong conclusion, for reasons it declined to really articulate. That’s the paper we know and love.
The editors’ argument goes like this: “Rosemont Copper has met extensive government requirements to improve its mine proposal, and so it is time to accept that the mine will be built.” That’s it. The piece goes on for many paragraphs but that really is all they have to offer: The proposal is better than it was, and negotiations have been going for a really long time, so it should go ahead. (By the way, it isn’t exactly true that the feds are good with the project: Several agencies that can nix the whole deal haven’t signed off.)
Not that the Star thinks that the mine is a good idea—in fact, somewhere near the middle the writers say, “We believe that Rosemont will be able to meet its legal and regulatory obligations. However, that does not mean that building this mine is wise.” (Water, you might have heard, is kind of a problem. Specifically, the water table in the Santa Cruz Valley is already overcommitted and mining takes a lot of water. The CAP will not help: California just declared a disaster due to drought, and in any contest between Arizona and California over CAP water there will be no contest. Lettuce vs. Royalty-Free Copper for China? Please.)
And as for all the other problems so nicely laid out by Davis and two graphic designers? “We are satisfied that over the years of analysis and negotiation, those have been mitigated to the extent reasonably possible.”
Translation: “OK, look. You have a disease. It’s been going on for years now and we’re satisfied that everything reasonably possible has been done. It’s become tedious for all of us. It’s time you accepted death.”
Actually, I do not accept. And I have three questions. One is, why does the Star “believe” that the company “is able to meet its . . . obligations?” (Not that it will, you notice, just that it’s able to.) Could they throw a little light? Two, isn’t that sort of a pathetic argument for a huge, irreversibly destructive project? And three, why now? The ore isn’t going anywhere.
Is it because time is running out for Rosemont Copper? The stock price of its Vancouver, B.C.-based parent company, Augusta Resources, has been steadily declining and has now dipped to 2009 levels. Shares at less than $2 means the market does not believe. Oh, but we should. We’re sun-dazed, gimme-a-buck-now yokels who should just cut a poor Canadian mining company some slack.
Whatever, people. Whatever you say.
This article appears in Jan 30 – Feb 5, 2014.
Not having the benefit of a dead-tree edition to dispose of, I was unaware of the two-page Tony Davis spread. The editorial hit the web version of the Star like a fish from the sky.
Thanks to Renee for explaining all this with more eloquence than I mustered when I hollered into the next room, “The Star says we should let the Rosemont mine get built because they’re tired of hearing about it.”
Sounds like the Daily Star has abdicated its responsibility for what the institution of a Free Press is generally charged to fulfill.
Frankly, I was appalled at what I read on the digital Star on Sunday. Besides the obvious issues of what this mine will do to the scenery, ecology, botannical & animal life in So AZ, the real issue is WATER!
Wealthy investors/construction types from the front range of Colorado have been trying to steal water out of the Flaming Gorge reservoir in WY, the major feed for the Colorado River, for about 5 years. That project, to get water to the Denver burbs failed, after an EIS finding (I think, but it was a while ago), and now SE Utah is trying to get a lot more water from the Colorado for much of the same reasons. ALL of the Western states (CO, AZ, UT, NV, CA) have access/legal rights to a portion of the Colorado River water, which is getting more and more scarce as the water levels of Lake Mead and Lake Powell drop dramatically due to 10+ years of drought.
So, as drought continues, as reservoir lake levels fall dramatically, and therefore CAP water will become more and more scarce, this mine will be taking water directly of the aquifer and out of S AZ communities for mine production. Tucson is the gold standard for water conservation in AZ (think Phoenix, think Mesa, LOTS of big green lawns, fountains and lakes), but we can’t xeriscape our portion of AZ to the point of spitting cotton balls.
Bottom line? IT’S THE WATER FOR SOUTHERN ARIZONA, STUPID, AND THAT’S WHY WE SHOULDN’T HAVE A MINE IN ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER LEGITIMATE REASONS!
One need look only a few pages further into the paper to find the real reason for the Star’s twisted, illogical conclusion–the full-page ad that Rosemont Copper took out crowing about their false victory. Millions of dollars of Rosemont ads over the past seven years have skewed the Star’s coverage, biased its editorial choices, and now, seemingly, broken its collective mind.
If the Star chooses irrelevance and insanity, so be it, but the people need not fall victim to this disease. The people can–and will–stop this mine.
Walmart screws communities by first investing in the goodwill of local charities and then purchasing the editorial goodwill of local papers. This seems no different, although it is possible, I suppose, that the entire Daily Star Editorial Board suffered a traumatic brain injury on the same day.
Rosemont’s water use is the equivalent of a 1% increase in population of the Tucson metro
So, unless you advocate zero population growth (i.e., oppose Senate immigration reform, advocate free birth control, etc.) you are hypocritical to oppose Rosemont on the grounds of water use.
Well, I got the wrong info, it appears to be equivalent to a 5% increase.
Still not much compared to the 20% increase in population since 2,000. Our main water problem is caused by population growth, not mining.
Anyone check my math. I found Rosemont would consume 5000 acre-feet per annum while Tucson Water delivers about 95000 acre-feet per annum.
The idea for future mining operations in this area, needs to be dismissed.
Copper of significantly higher purity, is available right out of the ground in other areas of the country. Upper Michigan is an excellent example of this. The geology in that area, has removed much of the work required to facilitate the concentration of this element before processing is necessary.
I have participated on tours in many of their wet and dry mine facilities. The Copper is concentrated in veins, in fault lines which run at approximately a 20 to 50 degree strike angles in this area. In addition, the Earths crust runs much deeper there as a supportive medium for these veins, which have been shown from past mining activity, to reach many thousands of feet down. The Copper I have seen there is of such purity, that pneumatic air drills cannot fracture the raw slabs and boulders. They are too soft. However the density/hardness of the rock medium there is exceptional, allowing for minimal use and construction of internal support structures to hold up the rock. This is only required to be done near the fault zones, from that observed. The intrinsic hardness of the surrounding rock also allows for reduced efforts in fracturing, to facilitate Copper extraction.
A number of the mines already have stopes constructed, which allow natural aspiration from above for workers there. While it is true that of the mines are flooded, many of these facilities are north of the Portage river, where this results from the weight of Lake Superior
The history of mining in Upper Michigan is as rich, if not more so, than with Arizona. Native Americans began mining Copper here, as far back as 5000 BCE to 12000 BCE. Representatives at all levels of government in this area, are excited and eager to have a mining company start operations back up there. Augusta Corporation would not have to face the obstacles, which they have to now, for the proposed facility near the Santa Rita mountains.
Web links follow, with current and historical information about some of the mines up in this area.
Michigan’s Nonferrous Metallic Mining Regulations – Part 632:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/DEQ-OGS-metallic-mining-Part632_308856_7.pdf
Dry mine example: http://www.adventureminetours.com/
Flooded Mine example: http://www.quincymine.com/
Michigan Tech A.E. Seaman Mineral museum: http://www.museum.mtu.edu/information/information.htm
Keweenaw Peninsula Mineral Structure: http://www.minsocam.org/MSA/collectors_corner/vft/mi2a.htm
Keweenaw Peninsula Mining History: http://www.minsocam.org/MSA/collectors_corner/vft/mi3a.htm
Am aware of the difficulties this area has faced with the process of permit approvals. Was informed of this by staff from the Quincy mine and from staff at the A.E. Seaman mineral museum the last couple of summers up in the Houghton area. The difficulty with the permitting approval process in Upper Michigan, has stemmed principally from the impacts associated with flooding of some of the mines there, the requirement to pump this water out for improved operations safety and the fact that discharges would end up back in Lake Superior. You would have to do this on a continuing basis, which is an obvious flag for life dependent on this water source.
This has unfortunately ‘shadowed’ the potential success of Copper extraction form ‘dry’ mine sources and other potential areas south of the Keweenaw Peninsula.
Up to now, this had been detrimental for mining in this area, because among other positive factors, the amount of harmful gasses is also greatly reduced for miners. Hopefully this will change soon. The differences in minerals there, contrasted with the constituent concentrations and associations of those found in the southwest, speak for themselves on this. From an additional safety standpoint, the critical component of mine access, has already been constructed. Renovation would be required, but it is certainly cheaper than doing it from scratch in some cases. Copper is there for at least thousands of feet further down, as a result of the Earths crust, which is thicker in this region of the northern United States.
Copper material from the southwest United States, has been shown to typically run at a much lower natural grade. This has historically led to the requirement for extraction of massive volumes of overburden and bedrock, to achieve meaningful amounts of net yield for the consumer. As a consequence, another unfortunate requirement is the use of toxic chemicals to facilitate refinement. While not speaking to inherent costs alone to meet environmental restrictions, these chemicals are also expensive because the elements that constitute their makeup are rare. By contrast, far lesser amounts of these chemicals would be required for refinement of the Copper from Upper Michigan.
The release of Radon gas is another unfortunate attribute in this region of the southwest. Bisbee is currently facing termination of its public mine tours just south of its historic district, for this reason. While it is understood this is an underground mine, one may recall the mobile home park just east of Globe, that had to be condemned in the 1980’s, due to the presence of extremely high levels of Radon gas detected there. Not the nicest odor coming out of the open pit mine south of the historic district as well. Bisbee is also unable to draw water from local aquifers and has to have it piped in from out of the area. Fear this will likely also end up happening to residents near the Santa Rita Mountains, as a consequence of the proposed Rosemont operation.
In light of mounting opposition to the proposed Rosemont project, In recent years, investors have begun posing the question to Augusta corporation, to purchase permits in the Upper Michigan area. Their response was cost. It is difficult to imagine how that decision would result in greater overall expense for their operation, in point considering:
1. Augusta Corporation has no cost for tangible infrastructure in place
at the proposed site.
2. Reduction in costly chemicals required for refinement at Mainland Upper
Michigan locations, compared with that ultimately required at the proposed
Rosemont site.
3. Reduced overall environmental impacts in this area, with a requirement
for lesser amounts of these chemicals.
4. Absence of ground water seepage in/out of mainland dry mines by virtue of their
location south of the Peninsula.
5. Reduced fuel expenses from mining in a much smaller area. It is understood that
this of course, changes with depth.
The Copper from Upper Michigan is impressive. Many large slabs, intrusions and small boulders are evident out of these veins, especially with the long tour available of the Adventure Copper Mine alone.
Renee Downing is the best writer the TW has. Period.
Very well written and to the point. The ADS editorial board is a disgrace. But why has the Weekly continued to ignore the El Rio Coalition!s court case against the City of Tucson in their refusal to turn over public records regarding their proposed sale of over 100 acres of public owned green space known as the El Rio Golf Course? Isn’t the access to public documents in the public (and the Weekly’s) interest?
Did you know that the pecan’s orchards use 10 times more water a year than the mine?
Renee Downing has it wrong. Tony Davis spent most of the last five years editorializing against Rosemont under that guise of journalism. Imagine how ashamed he must have felt when the Daily Star’s editorial board undercut his Rosemont smear campaign. When his own bosses aren’t listening to him, it’s time for Tony to leave town to ply his yellow journalism elsewhere.
Rosemont will be one of the biggest copper producers in the US and second in Arizona after Morenci. Mining at Rosemont will provide sorely needed income for workers and businesses that support the mine. Those dollars and the taxes from the mining will flow into Tucson’s sorry economy.
I took a drive around town today and saw one empty storefront after another. This place is becoming a ghost town right before our eyes. Our schools are grossly underfunded. Our roads are in tragic disrepair. We are constantly faced with cuts to services because the tax base isn’t here. Mining produces original economy, not like the service economies where dollars are traded back and forth. Not like retail sales, which is always competing for our diminishing dollars. Rosemont will make a big difference here
What’s the sacrifice? A big hole in the ground. Yup. That’s unavoidable. We’ve got quite a few existing open pits around the state but you rarely hear a word about the others. Sierrita? Mission? Ray? San Manuel? Silverbell? Bagdad? Miami? Pinto Valley? Sacaton? Most people haven’t even heard of them or couldn’t find them on a map without Google.
Water usage? The Sahuarita pecan orchards use much more water than the mines. So do the residents of our fair city. Rosemont will recycle most of its water use, as do all of AZ’s copper mines.
Air quality? Have you ever driven on I-10 past the cotton fields in spring before the plants begin to sprout during a big wind storm. Do you think that the mines will kick up that kind dust? The aerial extent of disturbance by Rosemont pales in comparison to the agricultural disturbances.
Bottom line: The Daily Star got it right: let the mine proceed. Enough is enough. There are plenty of arguments on both sides but Rosemont Copper has met the burden of permitting. Copper mining, it’s what we do here. Be thankful that we’ve got something to boost our poor desert economy.
The idea of “just accepting it” is indicative of a stoic mentality that, unfortunately, was a big problem in AZ when I lived there. Time to put more of a fighting spirit into the populace.
Also, there is another bogeyman lurking behind the promise (threat?) of the new copper mine which no one has mentioned yet, and that is cancer. Chen, Wei and Huang published a 20-year study of 7088 copper miners which showed a disproportionate amount of lung cancer among the miners. I myself have met former mine workers who struggled with cancer. It would be nice, to say the least, if further attention were paid to the potential risks to the health of prospective mine workers. Something to think about.
Thanks Renee for defining what those awful wrapper things are. I am another of the 8 readers, the child of a small-town newspaper publisher, but those damn things get tossed (Hello advertisers, they’re not working. I don’t know who you are, and I don’t look at the fish wrappers). Really hate the ones that you have to TEAR off the side of the comics!
And those GD post it things that they stick on the top of the front page are also annoying and the paper rips when I tear them off!
Wonder who in this thread is the guy who used to comment on StarNet so eloquently for his employer Rosemont. Can’t remember his nom de plume.
People (and food) use more water than the mine. Well that surely is a unique argument for opening a giant land scar, don’t you think? Even more “unique” than “Hey, other things are dirty too!”
Sheesh.
One crucial difference is that ordinary citizens can choose to install rain barrels for their gardens. I imagine that, if hard pressed, farmers could do the same.
I’ve never heard of a mine doing it, though.
The AZ Daily Star has reached a new low, if that could be possible, eh? The U.S. Forest Service, are only administrators of federal forest land, they don’t own it, We The People do. The U.S. Forest Services’, charge is to protect the Citizens land, from those who are committed to wasting and destroying it from destruction and vandalism. Through-out the U.S. Forest Services, history, they have always supported corporate interest, not the peoples land, which is their mandate. Hopefully, besides Pima County Representatives, Hurrah! for them, another responsible Government Agency, will step in for the protection of this important water-shed of southern AZ, for the health of the all the species, the Santa Rita Mountains, provides for and nourishes. And for a better daily news source read the Tucson Sentinel. Sincerely, Micky Smythe.