Comments on: Rosemont copper mine would benefit economy and community but is buried in bureaucracy

By: Copperhead

Copperhead — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:18:57 +0000

Guy…..”small benefit”????? Since when is +2000 new high paying/good benefits jobs, $19 million in direct taxation benefit and $700 million per year of economic stimulus to the local area considered small? I guarantee you, to a majority of the population in the area, it isn’t.

In contrast, the Gem Show provides approximately 400-500 low wage temporary jobs and depending who’s numbers you believe, $30 million or so in annual economic stimulus. But how much water is consumed by the people that visit every year? How much additional pollution is added to our air from additional vehicle emmissions? How much additional power is consumed and at what cost? How much of our local resources are consumed? Don’t think that the Gem Show stimulus doesn’t come with an environmental price as well (it is just that no one wants to admit it).

By: Mark Bowling

Mark Bowling — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:20:24 +0000

Why are Americans allowed to consume enormous amounts of copper while they shift more and more of their environmental burden onto the third world? The third world essentially has no health, safety and environmental protections on par with American regulations. Our current generation does not know real water pollution or contamination because we import most of what we consume. Next you’ll probably misuse the term “toxic dust” or some other “boogeymine” word. But the truth is our old mines today use much better technology and have greater regulatory oversight (and huge legal liability) to protect the environment than they used to have. We have the Clean Water & Clean Air Acts and many other laws. These old mines built in the 50’s & 60’s have made a lot of changes for the better, but Rosemont will be using all the latest technology and Best Management Practices from day one. It will be night and day. They will use the BMP’s the environmental groups claim they would support. Which modern, high-tech mine project has any environmental group supported? None – it’s all talking points so they can say “we’re not against all mining; we’re just against this mine”. “This is the wrong mine, at the wrong place, at the wrong time.” What poppycock! What they are doing is forcing mining onto the weak and powerless – they lead to even greater pollution (just not in our back yard).

Americans should produce at least some portion of the copper they enjoy. It is not like we are being asked to share the environmental and social burdens equally. Quit whining! Are you not in favor of fairness? Americans want to maintain their pretty views and they want to selfishly choose to ignore the tough issues, but they don’t seem to mind the continued suffering of those people groups from whom they import the balance of their copper “needs”. Out of sight, out of mind: most in the world call that Environmental Racism. That is not the kind of example that a world leader should give.

By: Fairvoice

Fairvoice — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:19:56 +0000

To get a good idea of how the mine will “help the economy” you need to take a trip to Winkelman, Hayden and Superior.

By: glennh

glennh — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:00:31 +0000

And the results of the mine, a scarred landscape forever, and rolling grasslands of Sonoita gone forever. Some trade.

By: Guy Mac

Guy Mac — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:39:37 +0000

I am in favor of putting all possible impediments in front of this project; I am not willing to give up 4,400 acres of prime hiking or mountain biking area, 4,400 acres of our Sonoran desert (the tailings will be on public land), 4,400 acres for such a tiny benefit and a huge permanent scar and potential pollution downstream (i.e. Tucson and Vail).

By: Jonathan DuHamel

Jonathan DuHamel — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:26:55 +0000

Data are from the Rosemont studies cited above.

By: Hugh Holub

Hugh Holub — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:06:37 +0000

Pamela…you can verify Mr. DuHamel’s water use data from the Arizona Department of Water Resources. It is ironic that FICO complains about the proposed pumping by Rosemont, yet they are one of if not the largest pumper of groundwater in Green Valley. Meanwhile FICO is working overtime to try and block Rosemont from participating in a project that would not only 100% recharge Rosemont’s pumping in the Green Valley area with CAP water, that project would create the capacity for everyone else pumping groundwater in Green Valley to rehcrage what they pump.

By: Hugh Holub

Hugh Holub — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:01:46 +0000

Mr. Foxtrot…I live in Tubac and we have a well. The arsenic here (and on the west side of Tucson) is naturally occuring and has nothing whatsoever to do with past mining.

By: W.T.Foxtrot

W.T.Foxtrot — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:25:26 +0000

Mr. DuHamel,

Oh, yeah, great cheerleading article for the mining company.

Because money is WAY more important to Arizona than the environment.

Oh, wait, don’t we Arizonans ALREADY HAVE strip mines out here?

And I suppose NONE of those could be reactivated?

And what about the already high levels of arsenic in the water in the Tubac area due to mining done on the past? Despite the fact that they have a removal treatment system in place, the arsenic is there.

Has any of your geology clases taught yuo about the effects of chemical leaching in the the aquafer?

When you are okay with your child developing leukemia, then come back and tell ANOTHER open pit mine is what this state needs.

Oh, wait, I know what your answer will be, it’s all the government’s fault.

Also, I enjoyed your disclaimer at the end. Make sure you add that to your resume when you apply to work at Rosemont copper.

And when the mining company begans their cycling round of hiring and layoffs, come back and re-read your article here.

I’d LOVE to see your analysis then of the GOOD this proposed mine is for the the benefit of economy of Arizona.

By: pamela

pamela — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:17:59 +0000

Interesting article– particularly the water use data. What is the source of that data?

The copper mine will pay taxes? Really? I’m not being sarcastic; it just seems weird since the state is constantly shelling out tax breaks. A business that has such a huge environmental impact should pay taxes and fees and have a thorough environmental review before construction.