Comments on: Local Politicians Against Jobs

By: insurance quote

insurance quote — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:21:36 +0000

The larger government gets, the more it drags down the economy. The only form of government spending that grows the economy is purchases of manufactured goods. It was only massive expenditures on armaments, and agressive marketing of munitions by the Soviet Union that kept it going as long as it did. Without the prop of extensive defense spending, the Soviet economy evaporated. As much as todays left reveres the old Soviet Union, there is a shunning of government purchases of manufactured goods, unless it is imported. Almost as if they are bought off or blackmailed.

By: David F. Briggs

David F. Briggs — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:19:57 +0000

A common tactic employed by those who oppose the Rosemont copper project employs the manipulation of our natural fear of the unknown as a tool to sway public opinion. This psychological approach is accomplished through flooding the common sources of information available to the public with false, distorted, misleading and contradictory information, making it virtually impossible for the average citizen to evaluate and understand the numerous, complex scientific and technical issues involved in developing, operating and reclaiming a large copper mining operation.

Gayle Hartman’s statement is a classic example of this tactic as it contains very little factual information that has not been distorted to support her views.

Despite what some would want the public to believe, virtually every major decision Augusta Resource has made with respect to this project since its purchase of the property in 2005, has been designed to responsibly deal with the environmental and social impacts this project will have on our community. From its small compact size to its use of proven, modern, technological innovations and mining practices, Rosemont Copper will minimize water usage, conserve our natural resources, protect and enhance wildlife habitat and preserve the quality of our environment with an ultimate goal of returning the land to productive use once mining has been completed. Scientific and technical data contained in numerous studies clearly show these goals to be achievable. These reports have been published and are presently available for examination by the anyone who wishes to learn more about this proposal.
Large mining operations like the proposed Rosemont copper project are capable of injecting tremendous amounts of capital into local communities, benefitting their citizens, governments, school districts and community projects. They also contribute to local economies through the direct and indirect creation of thousands of jobs. Unlike federal economic stimulus programs that consume our nation’s existing wealth at the expense of increasing our national debt, large mining projects represent exactly the type of economic stimulus program our nation needs, because they create the new wealth required for economic growth at no cost to the American taxpayer.
During the depths of the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. In making this proclamation during his inaugural address on March 4, 1933, he was warning the American people that fear only paralyzes our efforts to advance our society. At great expense and sacrifice, Americans have overcome their fears, creating a modern society that is the envy of the world. Our community is now confronted with a similar challenge. Do we surrender to our fears and accept the status quo or do we move forward and responsibly use southeastern Arizona’s mineral resources to help restore our nation’s weak economy?

By: Jonathan DuHamel

Jonathan DuHamel — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:41:42 +0000

Hi Gayle, A Gayle points out, she is president of Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, so she has a particular limited perspective. The real point of this blog is not to defend Rosemont, but to point out the rich mineral potential of the area and the foolishness of legislation that would curtail future use of that resource. You can see Rosemont's side here: http://www.rosemontcopper.com/

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:00:40 +0000

Nancy you knew the mines were next to you when you moved here from Silver. Why didn’t you choose to move to another location (the 99% of the U.S. without mines next door)???

And you’re off base about mining pay. An 18 year-old off the street can make $15 an hour. Someone with experience can get paid in the mid-twenties… How much do you think someone at a call center or cheesecake factory makes? If you friend made that much in 1982 for driving, they must have had many years under their belt before they were at that pay grade… That was great money back then! I know many miners who make in the $100k/year and I have many friends who work in the mines.

Great analysis Jonathan (as always)!! Those who dislike how the U.S. miners produce our metals in the safest, most environmentally responsible manner possible, have obviously have never been to the 3rd world where the balance of our needed resources are sourced. Until they change their lifestyle, the demand for the metals will be there. And every pound of copper not mined in the USA has a greater burden on the environment/humanity than a pound mined here. But people here are more concerned about a pretty view, than true impacts to the environment and human rights.

By: Gayle Hartmann

Gayle Hartmann — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:46:56 +0000

The article by Jonathan DuHamel, “Local Politicians Against Jobs” presented an extremely limited perspective of the proposed Rosemont copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains. In Mr. DuHamel’s simplistic view, anything that provides jobs is good.Anyone who sees the broad negative impacts associated with certain jobs and, thus, opposes the project that would provide the jobs, is bad. In an effort to present a broader picture of the Rosemont proposal, I briefly describe a few of the major impacts below: · Costs to Taxpayers. The Rosemont mine will result in significant costs being borne by taxpayers and residents. These include transportation infrastructure costs and reduction in property values. For example, the mine will not have rail access and is only accessible by truck. As a result, all of the equipment and personnel going in and the ore coming out of the mine will have to be trucked on State Route 83, a narrow, curving, two-lane road, that is a designated scenic highway. Trucks, some carrying toxic chemicals, will travel the road about every 15 minutes, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Considerable work, at tax payers expense, would have to be done on this road to accommodate the additional truck traffic created by the mine. · Economic Impacts. The economies of the nearby communities (Sonoita, Patagonia, Elgin, etc.) are driven by a combination of ranching, outdoor recreation and tourism, and individuals who have retired to the region. The mine’s effect on these small towns would be dramatic and negative. Any modest benefit of the mine will be greatly overshadowed by the loss of revenues from reductions in recreation and tourism revenues. These two industries alone generated an estimated $2.95 billion in southern Arizona in 2006 – significantly more than the potential economic contribution of the mine. Even by Augusta’s inflated estimate of jobs created, the potential and real negative impacts outweigh any modest benefit coming from the mine. Augusta estimates an annual payroll of about $14 million. This estimate does not take into account the fact that many of these jobs will be filled by non-residents and most of Rosemont’s profits will go to Augusta’s Canadian owners and other international investors. And, where will the copper go? Primarily to China and other Asian countries. · Water Quanity. The mine will use somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 acre-feet per year or about the amount consumed by 32,000 individuals. Augusta’s plan is to pump ground water from the west side of the mountains, pipe it over the mountains, and use it wash their ore rocks on the east side of the mountain. This water will come from a groundwater basin where the water table is already depleted. · Water Quality. The mine is located in the headwaters of Cienega Creek and Davidson Canyon, both streams with perennial flow that Pima County has spent much effort and tax money to protect. The Rosemont pit, over a mile wide and a half mile deep, will be larger than the Berkeley Pit in Butte, Montana, a closed copper mine that became the nation’s No. 1 superfund site. The “pit lake” in the Berkeley pit became a highly toxic chemical stew that threatened surrounding communities and ecosystems. The Rosemont pit has the potential to create an environmental disaster on a similar scale by leaking into Davidson Canyon, Cienega Creek, and ultimately the Tucson water table. We also want to point out that virtually all jurisdictions in this part of Arizona have passed resolutions opposing the mine: Pima County, Santa Cruz County, the City of Tucson, the towns of Marana, Oro Valley, Sahuarita, and Patagonia as well as the Green Valley Community Coordinating Council and the Tohono O’odham Nation. Thus, rather than limiting the discussion only to “jobs,” we suggest that it is crucial to consider, as our local community leaders have done, all the negative impacts in association with the mining proposal. Gayle Hartmann, presidentSave the Scenic Santa Ritaswww.scenicsantaritas.org

By: Geognostic

Geognostic — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:19:25 +0000

All new wealth comes from the earth – from agriculture, mining or forestry. All other wealth comes from recycling of those natural resources.
In the long run I wonder which will be more damaging to the environment – the Rosemont mine or the Town of Green Valley? Which will disturb the most land? Which will use the most groundwater? Which will create more toxic waste? Which is the biggest eyesore? Which will benefit the country the most over the course of time? It would make for an interesting study.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:35:06 +0000

Don Lee -
Interesting how they tout the 200 jobs at the Cheesecake Factory as a big deal but can write off jobs like this as not as impact. Just think these jobs get paid regardless of if you can afford to go out to dinner or not and the Cheesecake Factory depends on someone having a disposable income. Amazing but the very jobs you write off may make the others viable. Money paid to employees will stay where the employees spend it as will services provided to the site, profits will go to the shareholders just like they do for ALL publicly traded corporations. I am assuming that you advocate stopping everything that is not a direct reuse in the local area otherwise the rest of your argument does not hold water.
The studies on the economic benefits were completed by an independent organization working off of grant money. Historically, none of the infrastructure would exist without mining so the impacts are pretty positive. There were no reclamation laws before so how do you know the current ones are not “strong enough”. Just look at San Manuel as an example of current practices, even thought this does not represent the same sort of concurrent reclamation it shows the current thinking.

By: DON LEE

DON LEE — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:47:37 +0000

The economic benefits from the Rosemont mine have consistently been overstated by its proponets. The majority of the jobs created will be typical for an open pit mine. The pay will be decent but there just isn’t going to be enough of them to make much of an impact in the short or long term.
Most of the revenue generated will find itself out of state and even out of country, not to mention the fact that the cost of copper and it’s products aren’t going to be a bit cheaper to us just because we furnished the raw materials.
Historically, every mine in Arizona has left us with a negative environmental impact and I see no reason to believe them when they say this one will be different. Our reclamation laws still aren’t strong enough to prevent it.

By: Nancy Freeman

Nancy Freeman — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:01:41 +0000

Jonathan–so you think that we the people should pay for the costly process to drink effluent, while the mining company pumps good quality ground water. I’m sure that we all think that is sound reasoning. Just like thinking that we have to dig up every oz of copper now and save none for the future, when there will surely be better methods of extracting copper.
And you are simply mistaken about mining pay. My friend that worked for Twin Buttes as a truck driver in 1982 made $15. hour…. the same pay a truck driver gets today. The numbers are high because they average in the pay of management.

By: Richard H

Richard H — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 02:15:37 +0000

The state of Arizona is the number one producer of copper in the U.S, and copper continues to be an important contributor to our local and state economy.
As the resource map indicates, Pima county and the Santa Ritas are prime potential areas for future production of copper and other minerals.     With the current economic slump and unemployment near 10%, we direly need a market-based economic stimulus, such as Rosemont mine would provide. But not if our politicians, the anti-industrial left, and other selfish interests of this community have their way!  What kind of logic is it to close off a large chunk of U.S. Forest (H.R. 2944 ) for the sole purpose of killing a mine?   It is absurd.
First, it won’t wash, because of issues of private property infringements and pre-existing rights. Second, such bullying would further public distrust/fear of an increasingly arrogant, oppressive and out-of-control government; as it has traditionally been a legal and constitutional right to develop mineral resources on public lands.   Finally, it would deprive working families of this community the benefits of good-paying jobs, broader tax base and an improved economy.   Sorry, Rep’s Grijalva and Giffords, H.R. 2944 should and will be dead on arrival. Sorry, Supervisors Huckelberry and Carroll, the people are fed up with your anti-development policies.    The good news is, November isn’t too far off, when we will have the opportunity to remove these self-serving, anti-business politicians from office.