If we remove metals from the service of man, all methods of protecting and sustaining health and more carefully preserving the course of life are done away with.  If there were no metals, men would pass a horrible and wretched existence in the midst of wild beasts…  -Georgius Agricola, in De Re Metallica, 1556.

For Arizona, it is not just metals.  Arizona produces sand and gravel, limestone for cement production, coal for electrical generation, and a variety of industrial minerals which contribute almost $2 billion to Arizona’s economy (see here).

Arizona has a long history of mining.  There is archeological evidence that cinnabar, coal, turquoise, clay, pigments, and other minerals were mined in Arizona beginning at least 3,000 years ago. (See A History of Mining in AZ by the Arizona Mining Association.)

According to the Arizona Mining Association, Arizona currently produces 68% of domestically mined copper.  With that copper production comes by-product molybdenum, gold, silver, platinum, and rhenium.  Incidentally, The Sierrita Mine south of Tucson is currently the only domestic producer of rhenium, a metal used in high-temperature, super-alloy turbine blades for jet aircraft and other land-based turbines.  The Sierrita plant processes output from other mines on a toll basis. It may soon be joined by a second rhenium plant at the Kennecott (Rio Tinto) mine in Utah.

The direct and indirect economic impact of copper mining on Arizona’s economy is about $4.6 billion annually.  That includes $3.2 billion in personal income,  $500 million in state and local government revenues, and 49,800 high-paying jobs for Arizonans. Average labor income of mining company employees (including benefits) is $108,000 per worker vs. $47,000 for all Arizona workers.  If we add in non-metallic, non-fuel, minerals, then Arizona produced about $8 billion worth of mineral products in 2012 according to the U.S. Geological Survey.  Arizona ranks second, after Nevada, in value of total mineral production.  The U.S. total value of mineral production was about $76 billion which supported more than 1.2 million jobs in 2012.

Arizona is endowed with great mineral resources as shown on the map below prepared by the Arizona Geological Survey.

Currently ASARCO and Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold are the two biggest copper producers in the state.  ASARCO operates three mines and a smelter. According to the Southern Arizona Business Coalition, in 2012 ASARCO paid wages and benefits of $215.8 million, property, severance, and sales taxes of $47.2 million, and employed 2,198 people in Arizona. Freeport operates mines in Safford, Morenci, Bagdad, Miami, and Sierrita.  They paid wages and operational spending of $860 million in 2012, taxes of $274 million while employing 7,600 people directly and indirectly employing an additional 30,000 people.

In addition to past and current mining, there are many projects on the horizon, some in the exploratory stage, others navigating the byzantine regulatory permitting process.  (See my posts: Mining and the bureaucracy and How NEPA crushes productivity)

Perhaps the largest project is that of Resolution Copper near the town of Superior just west of the famed Globe-Miami mining district and just north of ASARCO’s Ray mine.  This is a bold undertaking because the orebody is 7,000 feet below the surface.  Resolution says that at peak production, this mine will be the largest copper mine in North America, producing over one billion pounds of copper per year.  Resolution estimates that over the 64-year life of the mine, the project will generate $61.4 billion in economic value, provide $20 billion in tax revenues, and provide 3,700 permanent jobs.

The Rosemont copper mine south of Tucson is nearing the end of its long journey through the regulatory maze, and mine construction may begin early next year.  This mine will generate 2,900 Arizona jobs and inject $19 billion into Arizona’s economy and pay $404 million in local taxes over its 20-year projected life.  The mine expects to produce 243 million pounds of copper per year.

Curis Resources is developing an in-situ copper mine near Florence, Arizona.  In this project, instead of mining rock, Curis Resources “seeks to dissolve copper minerals from an underground deposit by introducing water with a lowered-pH (making it slightly acidic).This low-PH, water-based solution dissolves the copper and allows it to be pumped to the surface through a continuous loop water treatment system.”  This deposit, lying 400-to 1200 feet below the surface contains approximately 2.84 billion pounds of copper.

Curis estimates that over the projected 28-year life of the project, it will generate $2.2 billion in economic activity for the state of Arizona, $1.1 billion in economic activity for Pinal County, $325 million in taxes and royalties for Arizona government, and $1.46 billion in increased personal income in Arizona, 170 direct jobs at the project site in Florence, and 681 jobs in the state of Arizona.

The I-10 copper deposit, located along Interstate 10 between Benson and Willcox, Arizona, is being investigated as another in-situ copper leaching project by  Excelsior Mining Corporation, a Canadian junior company. They estimate the deposit currently contains an indicated oxide copper resource of 3.21 billion pounds and an additional inferred oxide copper resource of 0.88 billion pounds.

Wildcat Silver Corporation is in the exploration stage of its Hermosa Project which is evaluating the silver-manganese potential in the historic Hardshell mining district near Patagonia in Southern Arizona. Their preliminary economic assessment estimates a measured and indicated resource of 236 million ounces of silver and an inferred silver resource of an additional 79 million ounces.  Project life is estimated at 16 years.  Wildcat estimates that annual production will be 4.1 million ounces of silver, 233,000 tons of manganese carbonate, 20,187 tons of zinc cathode, and 960 tons of copper.

Copper Creek is an old mining district located on the east bank of the San Pedro River and on the western slope of the Galiuro Mountains about 75 miles northeast of Tucson. The property has been acquired by Redhawk Resources, a Canadian junior mining company that plans to develop an underground mine for copper, molybdenum, and silver.  Redhawk estimates a resource of 7.75 billion pounds of copper, 150 million pounds of molybdenum, and 32 million ounces of silver.

The Oracle Ridge mine is a small, underground copper mine in the Santa Catalina Mountains just north of Tucson. The mine was operated intermittently, most recently from 1991-1996. The mine is being developed by a junior Canadian mining company, Oracle Ridge Copper (project website).  The company anticipates employing about 200 people to run the mine which has a projected life of 11 years. The mine will produce 140 tons of concentrate (about 30% copper) a day which will be trucked off the mountain and transported to a smelter.

In northern Arizona, near the Grand Canyon are over 1,300 known or suspected breccia pipes many of which contain uranium oxide as well as sulfides of copper, zinc, silver, and other metals. According to the Arizona Geological Survey, “Total breccia-pipe uranium production as of Dec. 31, 2010, has been more than 10,700 metric tons (23.5 million pounds) from nine underground mines, eight of which are north of Grand Canyon near Kanab Creek.”  This area is mired in fears of contamination of the Colorado River (see Uranium mining and its potential impact on Colorado River water) and a 20-year, million-acre mineral entry withdrawal by the Department of the Interior.

In northeastern Arizona there is potential for a major potash deposit. American West Potash has recently delineated, a considerable resource estimated at  158 million metric tons of sylvinite (a mixture of sodium and potassium chloride, not to be confused with sylvanite, a gold telluride), with about 16 million metric tonnes of K₂O; and inferred resources of 560 million metric tonnes of sylvinite with just over 66 million metric tons of K₂O in the Holbrook Basin, about 30 miles east of Holbrook, Arizona.

The Holbrook Basin area also holds potential for helium and shale oil resources.

Arizona currently has three producing gold mines and several other prospects being actively explored for gold (see here).

“In 2011, the state of Arizona led the United States in the production of gemstones. Arizona has long been famous as a producer of turquoise, peridot and petrified wood. Gemstones such as azurite, chrysocolla and malachite are associated with the Arizona’s many copper deposits and have a long history of being produced there. Agate, amethyst, garnet, jade, jasper, obsidian, onyx, and opal have all been found in Arizona and used to make gems.” – Geology.com

As you can see, besides currently producing mines, Arizona holds future potential that will add jobs and economic value to the local, state, and national economy – if they can get through the bureaucratic regulatory maze.

Remember, the value of mining is not just the money, it is in providing the products we need to keep our civilization going.  If it can’t be grown, it has to be mined.

This toad ranges from Central Arizona to southwestern New Mexico and Sinaloa, Mexico.  It used to occur in southeastern California but has not been reported there for about 40 years.  The Sonoran Desert toad inhabits creosote bush desert scrub, grasslands up into oak-pine woodlands, and thornscrub and tropical deciduous forest in Mexico.  This time of year you might see one in your yard.  These toads can climb fences if there is enough purchase.

According to the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum: “Sonoran Desert toads feed upon a variety of insects throughout their lives. Adults eat primarily beetles, although large individuals will occasionally eat small vertebrates including other toads. Sonoran Desert toads are active from late May to September, though principally during the summer rainy season. They are nocturnal during the hot summer months. The male’s call is weak, sounding somewhat like a ferryboat whistle. Eggs are laid in temporary rain pools and permanent ponds. Larvae metamorphose after 6 to 10 weeks. This species lives at least 10 years, and perhaps as many as 20 years.”

A defensive milky neurotoxin venom can be released from the parotid gland behind the eyes and similar organs on the legs.   The venom is potent enough to kill a large dog, should the dog grab a toad.  Symptoms of envenomation include foaming at the mouth, drunken gait, confusion, vomiting, diarrhea, or complete collapse.  There is no antitoxin.

The venom can have a psychedelic effect because it contains chemicals in the dimethylethanamine family and is closely related to DMT, a naturally occurring hallucinogenic drug akin to synthetically made LSD. Toad venom has long been used by native peoples of the Colorado River region in some religious ceremonies. Some people lick the toads to get high and there are many websites explaining how to extract the venom, dry it and smoke it.  This is very dangerous because an overdose can cause cardiac arrest in humans.

By the way, what is the difference between toads and frogs?  All toads are frogs, but not all frogs are toads.  According to allaboutfrogs.org, in general, frogs have two bulging eyes, strong, long, webbed hind feet that are adapted for leaping and swimming, smooth or slimy skin, tend to like moister environments, and lay eggs in clusters.  Toads have stubby bodies with short hind legs, warty and dry skin, parotid glands behind the eyes, and tend to lay eggs in long chains.

See also:

Creatures of the night- Spadefoots

Venomous Lizards

Venomous Centipedes and Cyanide-Oozing Millipedes

The most dangerous venomous animals of the Southwest

Middleton says of this: “Clearly, in terms of ‘bang for the buck,’ government programs that coddle renewable energy are losers. In terms of jobs, the losers are the American workers who would otherwise be gainfully employed but for the tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars on the administration’s obsession with ‘green energy.’ As the economy continues to suffer and dollars for federal programs get harder to come by, it is getting increasingly difficult to defend a program that costs so much and produces so little.”

President Obama promised to create 5 million green energy jobs over 10 years.  He has only 4,997,702 jobs to go.

The alleged rationale for these green energy projects is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide produced by generation of electricity, and indeed they have.   Middleton calculates that U.S. green energy projects have reduced global carbon dioxide emissions by 0.007% relative to coal or 0.00035% relative to natural gas.  Again, not much bang for the buck.  It’s your tax dollars at work.

See also:

Solar energy cannot economically compete in electricity generation

Wind turbines versus wildlife

Big Wind gets “get out of jail free card” from Obama Administration

Does alternative energy actually replace fossil fuel consumption?

The Cost of green energy

Health Hazards of Wind Turbines

]]> http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/06/13/green-energy-jobs-cost-taxpayers-only-11-million-each/feed/ 0 http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/06/11/shale-oil-potential-of-arizona/ http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/06/11/shale-oil-potential-of-arizona/#comments Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:47:00 +0000 Jonathan DuHamel http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/?p=1833 Shale oil and gas discoveries in the U.S. are quickly making us less dependent on OPEC for our energy supplies.  How does Arizona fit into the picture?  The Arizona Geological Survey has recently begun an assessment of Arizona’s potential contribution with a new report:

Rauzi, S.L. and Spencer, J.E., 2013, A Brief Overview of the Cretaceous Mancos Shale in Northeastern Arizona and its Hydrocarbon Potential. Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report, OFR-13-08, 8 p. (download for free here, there also is a 100-second-long video here).

An AZGS press release gives an overview:

New developments in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracture technology are transforming some marginal shale oil and shale gas deposits into economic oil and gas targets.  In the Southwestern U.S., the Cretaceous Mancos Shale is part of the stratigraphic sequence in both the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico and Black Mesa in northeastern Arizona. [See map at bottom of this post] It has been the source of much oil and gas in the San Juan Basin, with renewed drilling and hydrofracturing now underway, but has received little attention in Arizona where it underlies the Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations. In light of this discrepancy, the Arizona Geological Survey reexamined existing well data and rock unit descriptions for the Mancos Shale in northern Arizona.

This new report includes information on the location and availability of existing well logs, cuttings and rock core for seven oil and gas wells drilled at Black Mesa.  The absence of geochemical analyses or Total Organic Carbon values of the black, lower shale precludes even crude estimates of the oil or gas content or thermal maturity of the Mancos Shale.

The marine Mancos Shale comprises a lower calcareous, organic-rich shale that grades upward into fine siltstones and sandstones. It is this lower organic-rich unit that holds the greatest potential for economic shale oil and shale gas deposits.  The Mancos Shale at Black Mesa ranges in thickness from 720 feet in the north, to only 475 feet in the south.  From north to south, the base of the Mancos Shale ranges from ~ 1,500 feet deep to several hundred feet deep.

Black Mesa has been an important source of coal in Arizona since the 1970s. Currently, Peabody Energy strip mines coal from the Wepo Formation near Kayenta on Black Mesa to fuel the 2,250 megawatt Navajo Generating Station.

The Paradox Basin in Utah, just north of the Arizona-Utah border, may serve as an analog for the Black Mesa of Arizona.   Last year the U.S. Geological Survey completed a study of the area and concluded that the area has potential for “560 million barrels of undiscovered oil, 12,701 billion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas, and 490 million barrels of undiscovered  natural gas liquids…” (See my post here.)

Northeastern Arizona has other mineral potential as well.  See my posts:

Helium potential of Arizona may help fill shortage

Arizona may become a major producer of potash

And just to make things even more interesting, the area east of Flagstaff is the most probable area for a volcanic eruption in Arizona.  See Young Volcanic Fields of Arizona.

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”– Albert Einstein

Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy have published a graph comparing the predictions of 73 climate models versus the observations of radiosondes and satellites for tropical mid-troposphere global temperatures.  On the graph, the “spaghetti” are the model predictions and the heavy black line is the average of the models.  Actual observed temperature measurements (boxes and circles) from four balloon-borne radiosonde data sets and two satellite data sets are show to be lower than even the lowest model prediction since 1998 and lower than the average model prediction since 1979.

It is obvious from the graph that model predictions diverge markedly from reality.  Why?  The models are programed with a false assumption, namely, that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global temperature.  That hypothesis further assumes that as carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere, more water will evaporate (water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas), thereby producing “an enhanced greenhouse effect” i.e., a strong positive feedback.

It appears however, that the feedback is very small and perhaps negative. The models are wrong, probably because water vapor has a net negative feedback: clouds reflect sunlight and water vapor removes heat by convection. NASA says that even carbon dioxide can act as a coolant at the top of the atmosphere, see here.

We see also that although atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising, global relative humidity and specific humidity have been decreasing according to data from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory(see graphs below).  That, too, contradicts the modeling assumption. Relative humidity is the percentage of water vapor in the air relative to the maximum possible water content at a specific temperature.  Specific humidity is the ratio of water vapor to dry air in a particular mass. See here for a more detailed explanation.

The models are wrong because of wrong assumptions.  Unfortunately, much government policy and spending billions of dollars are based on these faulty assumptions.

Temperature and humidity are not the only failures of climate models.  See: As Floods Hit Eastern Germany, Recent Potsdam Climate Institute Model Warned Of Summertime “Water Shortages”!

A new paper in Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science says that models fail because they do not provide “an adequate description of basic processes like cloud formation, moist convection, and [air] mixing.”

See also:

A Basic Error in Climate Models

Failure of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis

The Case Against the IPCC and Proponents of Dangerous Anthropological Global Warming

In a previous post, “How NEPA crushes productivity,” I wrote about the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a byzantine Federal bureaucratic maze that stifles productivity.  The length, complexity and uncertainty of the permitting process of NEPA now takes a mining company about 10 years to obtain the necessary Federal permits for a major project.  That puts the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage since other countries are more efficient in this regard.  For instance, permitting time in Canada and Australia is typically less than two years.

In contrast to the Federal NEPA process, ADEQ has a process that gets the job done much more efficiently and now ADEQ is striving to make it even better.  The ADEQ system should be a model for the Feds.

I asked ADEQ Director Henry Darwin some questions about the philosophy and workings of ADEQ:

Wryheat: 1. What advancements in regulations and permitting time lines has ADEQ made recently?

Darwin:

ADEQ has applied “Lean techniques” to its permitting processes and is now making permitting decisions much faster.  Permits that previously required 18 months to process are now being processed in less than a year.  Certain interim permitting steps, administrative review for example, previously took up to 60 days and can now be completed in a single meeting.

Wryheat note: “Lean techniques” according to Wikipedia “is a production practice that considers the expenditure of resources for any goal other than the creation of value for the end customer to be wasteful, and thus a target for elimination. Working from the perspective of the customer who consumes a product or service, ‘value’ is defined as any action or process that a customer would be willing to pay for.  Essentially, lean is centered on preserving value with less work.”

Wryheat: 2. Do you believe that economic activity, especially mining, can co-exist with good environmental stewardship? If so, how?

Darwin:

I have long believed environmental protection and economic development go hand in hand. It is a little recognized fact that poor countries and countries that are emerging from poverty have the most difficult time protecting the environment. The converse is also true; a strong economy provides society the wherewithal to protect the environment.  As a result, the best indicator of a healthy natural environment is often a healthy economic environment.

Wryheat: 3. To some, mining and environmental quality are opposites. How does ADEQ reconcile the apparent conflict?

Darwin:

This is a false choice. Prudent use of natural resources and environmental protection are not at odds. Conflict between the two only arises at the extreme of either activity, and legal protections exist to minimize mining’s adverse impacts. ADEQ doesn’t get to decide whether a mine opens, but through our permitting processes, we ensure mining operations occur in an environmentally responsible way that limits harmful emissions to our air, water and soil. It’s worth noting, as important as the mining industry is to Arizona’s economy, our state leaders recognized the value in protecting our precious natural resources. This is why they passed the Environmental Quality Act in 1986, which not only established ADEQ as a separate, cabinet level agency, but also created the Aquifer Protection Permit program, the first comprehensive groundwater protection program in the nation. As a result, every mine that operates in Arizona must obtain a permit that ensures groundwater is protected.

Wryheat: 4. What do you regard as the minimum time for ADEQ to vet a major project and what does the process consist of?

Darwin:

In the recent past we have permitted several large projects in as little as six months, but timeframes are project-specific and providing a general timeframe would be subject to error. We encourage any party who is planning a major project to visit with us to establish a plan for expeditious permitting. An expeditious process consists of the following major steps:

Pre-Application Meeting: Face to face pre-application meeting

Administrative Review: A real time and face to face administrative review meeting to make sure the applications is complete

Substantive Review: Regular phone contact between the ADEQ permit writer and the applicant’s consultant during substantive review

Applicant Review of Permit Conditions

Public Comment

Public Comment Response

Final Payment

Issue Permit

Wryheat: 5. Does ADEQ regard itself, in its role of protecting the environment, a partner of business or a strict watchdog, or both? How is that reconciled?

Darwin:

As I said in my response to Question 2, above, a strong economy and safe, healthy environment are not adversarial. In fact, one of our agency’s strategic goals is to support environmentally responsible economic growth. Companies that do business in Arizona often require our products and services (permits, or example) in order to operate. Such companies are, in fact, our customers, and ADEQ must deliver value as our customers define it. This doesn’t mean we give our customers everything they want, because the customer is not always right. We have shareholders, too, namely taxpayers, who require a solid return on their investment; they want clear skies, clean water and land that is safe to roam, work and play. There must always be a healthy balance between delivering customer value and providing that solid return on investment for Arizona taxpayers.

I asked some representatives of the mining industry about their perception of ADEQ.

From Kathy Arnold, VP Environmental & Regulatory Affairs, Rosemont Copper Company:

ADEQ has made great strides with permitting both in setting specific requirements and in setting specific timeframes. This gives businesses the certainty necessary for determining timeframes.  ADEQ has been working on developing processes and rules for programs and their stakeholder system allows people to give input necessary so rules can be fully vetted and understood before implementation. The overall process for permits is fair and can be followed without political interference. The enforcement of the rules and permits is tough but again fair.  

From  Steve Trussell, Executive Director, Arizona Rock Products Association:

The ADEQ has recently worked on several projects that have been of key interest to citizens of our state in terms of air and water quality, but two that come to mind as of late are efforts to respond to  components of Governor Jan Brewer’s Four Cornerstones Document which was presented at the State of the State Address in January of this year. 

The ADEQ began the laborious task of process waste reduction regarding the amount of steps it takes to get a permit out the door by reducing licensing time frames.  ADEQ hosted events which included stakeholders in order to identify the factors that arise in permitting that could be potentially holding up permit approvals.  Permitting can be a challenge depending on the specific project and the current regulatory requirements and is a key factor in business investment in Arizona.  ADEQ has employed LEAN process improvements that have and will continue to reduce permitting delays for both air and water permitting and will be implementing the lessons learned across the boards and within all sections of the agency.  The agency reports that processing times have been reduced by one-third and have allowed companies to allocate valuable resources elsewhere. 

Additionally, the ADEQ will further enjoy expeditious submittals, approvals and reporting compliance as a result of their proposed e-portal which will allow the agency to move in a paperless direction.  The portal will enable a permitted source to track, report and submit payment on all of their various permits with the agency, and all in one place.  A process that once required a tremendous amount of time and effort from a record keeping and delivery standpoint would now be possible at the project site.

These are merely a few examples of progressive steps the ADEQ has taken to be protective of the environment while addressing time and resource sensitivity of Arizona’s businesses. Governor Brewer had this to say about the initiative, “The completion of this project, with its cost savings, convenience, and compliance assistance, will be a boon to business regulated by the ADEQ and help attract new business to Arizona” and the members of the Arizona Rock Products Association. couldn’t agree more.  All business organizations regulated by the ADEQ should encourage the legislature to support this laudable effort.

Mr. Darwin sent me some information on the proposed e-portal Mr. Trussel mentioned.  The new site will be called MyDEQ.  The program “will  funded through existing revenue ($10 million) from the Vehicle Emissions Inspections Fund.”

Here are some highlights of the proposed program:

The Federal government should take notice of ADEQ methods and try to emulate them.

See also:

Mining and the bureaucracy

How NEPA crushes productivity

Uncorrected Forest Service errors block marble mine

Pima County versus Rosemont

The importance of minerals to our economy and national security

Attorney Karen Budd-Falen says this practice is both a scandal and waste of taxpayer dollars.  The following is her charge (I’ve made some minor edits for clarity):

This is a plea for help, to raise awareness and public outcry regarding yet another federal government cover-up.  The scandal –- the Justice and Treasury Departments’ refusal to inform the American taxpayer how much, and for what, their tax dollars are being spent and … the inability of Congress to put forth legislation that requires this information to be available to the American public.  How can there be reform of a crisis (or how can radical environmental groups prove that our claims of abuse are blown out of proportion) without transparency and an accounting?

According to a study from Drexel University, there are 6,500 national and 20,000 local environmental organizations with an estimated 20-30 million members.  This study opines that the “environmental movement” dwarfs other modern social movements such as the civil rights or peace movements.  Because it would be impossible to study all 6,500 national groups, we reviewed all the federal district court complaints over a series of years for just 3 of these groups and found:

–Thirty-five percent (35%) of federal court complaints are filed ONLY based on a missed procedural step under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);

–Twenty nine percent (29%) of federal court complaints are filed ONLY based upon missed timelines under the Endangered Species Act (ESA):

–Eleven percent (11%) of all federal court complaints are filed because of a failure to complete the process for considering an action under “Section 7″ of the ESA.

Importantly, these are not cases where the federal court can rule that there is harm to the environment or that additional substantive actions are necessary; the ONLY thing a court can do is send the case back to the federal government for more process.

But that is not why this litigation is filed: litigation is filed because the courts have the power to delay private lives and livelihoods while the federal government completes more process.  The harm to American families is not whether the federal government can comply with a process, the harm is in the endless delay in issuing a decision so that America can move forward.  It is red-tape at its [worst], and radical environmental groups are absolutely making the most of the red tape and killing [the livelihoods of] American families in the meantime.

Let me give you more details:

As stated above, this firm reviewed the federal court complaints to analyze the claims underlying each of their cases; the families that are being targeted by the litigation; and what a federal court could do to grant the relief requested.  Over 400 federal court complaints individually analyzed were filed by either the Western Watersheds Project (WWP), WildEarth Guardians (WEG) or the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).  WWP’s Policy Memos list as a “to do”: “Get all cows and sheep off federal lands ASAP!”  The WEG uses ” litigation, science, public outreach and organizing, the media, and lobbying” to make progress towards their goals of phasing out fossil fuels, obtaining formal listings of species under the Endangered Species Act; ensuring public lands “are not destroyed” by “over development, overgrazing, or natural resource extraction.”  CBD is noted as a group that uses litigation and petitions to “effect change.”  Its campaigns include listing species, stopping unsustainable human population growth and species extinction crisis and opposition to motorized recreation.

For these groups, we documented:

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the litigation tool of choice for the WWP and CBD, with 58% and 36% of their complaints respectively including a NEPA claim.  NEPA is a process; according to the Supreme Court, NEPA’s purpose is “to ensure a fully informed and well-considered decision, not necessarily a decision the judges of the Court of Appeals or of this Court would have reached had they been members of the decision making unit of the agency.”  Thus, the courts enforce the NEPA process, but rarely over turn the substance of the federal agency decision.

The problem, however, is that the courts are willing to enjoin or stop a project or decision until the federal government complies with the NEPA process.  So what does this mean for American families?  Consider that 89% of the federal district court complaints filed by WWP directly attack livestock grazing by claiming a violation of a NEPA procedure and then seeking to stop (temporarily or permanently) a rancher’s use of the lands he has used for generations because the federal government violated the NEPA process.  NEPA is a powerful hammer to eliminate these families because if they rely on the federal government to make a decision and the federal government cannot get through enough procedural hoops to make a decision, that American family cannot continue to make a living.   These ranch families are not the only ones under attack because of litigation over process.  The industries that produce America’s energy from our natural resources are bearing the brunt of the NEPA litigation from the WEG and CBD, specifically 22% and 18% of the federal court complaints respectively oppose natural resource producing power plants, energy production, and mining.  Even “green energy” is now being attacked by the WWP, CBD and WEG as part of their litigation strategy.  Again, the issue being litigated is not whether energy production is beneficial or detrimental to the environment, but whether the federal government properly completed the process. And just like the harm to the ranching families, the Courts can stop all movement until the NEPA process is complete and the radical groups cease their litigation wanting more and more process.

Another huge litigation arena is the federal government’s compliance with the timelines in the Endangered Species Act.  Over 46% of the cases filed by the WEG are ONLY to force the federal government to comply with these time frames; 30% of the CBD cases and 25% of the WWP cases contain the same claims.  As with NEPA, the courts cannot enforce any listing or critical habitat decision; the court can ONLY hold that the federal agencies failed to comply with the timelines and then pay attorneys fees to these radical groups because the federal government cannot meet the time-frames set by Congress.  Attorney hourly fees can range from $500.00 per hour to $750.00 per hour.   And it has cost the American taxpayers millions of dollars paying radical groups to harm American workers.

American families are being targeted by groups being paid your tax dollars to put Americans out of work, not in the name of environmental protection, but in the name of procedures and technicalities. Please contact your Congressional Representatives; we have to stop yet another federal government cover-up.  We need an accounting now.

Wryheat comment:

Environmental laws, as currently structured, contain too many bureaucratic hoops and traps that have nothing to do with environmental issues. For many federal agencies it is all about process rather than substance and good environmental stewardship. Environmental groups have learned to take advantage of the bureaucratic hoops and traps to delay the process and enrich themselves to the detriment of American families, industries, and our economy.

See also:

Property Rights and Freedom

Regulating behind closed doors, the cozy relationship between the Feds and environmental groups

Mining and the bureaucracy

How NEPA crushes productivity

The EPA is destroying America

Repeal the Endangered Species Act

Endangered Species paperwork to cost $206,098,920

The American Association for the Advancement of Science has a statement on GMOs and labeling which begins:

“There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested.”

See full statement here.

Humans have been genetically modifying food crops for a long time.  Ever hear of teosinte?  It is a grass that grows in Mexico and Central America.  Many thousands of years ago, farmers began selecting the seeds from certain individual teosinte plants that favored larger seeds or kernels and planted these larger seeds to encourage the trait.  This process is known as selective breeding or artificial selection. Eventually the plant became known as maize (corn).  The maize or corn cob looks nothing like the original plant but, according to the University of Utah, “at the DNA level, the two are surprisingly alike. They have the same number of chromosomes and a remarkably similar arrangement of genes. In fact, teosinte can cross-breed with modern maize varieties to form maize-teosinte hybrids that can go on to reproduce naturally.”

Beginning in the 1950s, Norman Borlaug, so-called father of the Green Revolution, took selective breeding to new heights.  His work helped save millions of lives.  An article in Forbes Magazine recounts the story:

“First, he and his colleagues laboriously crossbred thousands of wheat varieties from around the world to produce some new ones with resistance to rust, a destructive plant pest; this raised yields 20% to 40%.

“Second, he crafted so-called dwarf wheat varieties, which were smaller than the old shoulder-high varieties that bent in the wind and touched the ground (thereby becoming unharvestable); the new waist or knee-high dwarfs stayed erect and held up huge loads of grain.  The yields were boosted even further.

“Third, he devised an ingenious technique called “shuttle breeding”– growing two successive plantings each year, instead of the usual one, in different regions of Mexico.  The availability of two test generations of wheat each year cut by half the years required for breeding new varieties.  Moreover, because the two regions possessed distinctly different climatic conditions, the resulting new early-maturing, rust-resistant varieties were broadly adapted to many latitudes, altitudes and soil types.  This wide adaptability, which flew in the face of agricultural orthodoxy, proved invaluable, and Mexican wheat yields skyrocketed.”

As a result, Mexico became an exporter of wheat and India and Pakistan doubled their production.

Borlaug’s work also led to the development of high-yield rice, including vitamin-A-rich “golden rice” in Asia.

Advances in molecular biology allow gene splicing to produce GMOs faster than the older method of selective breeding.  Is this unnatural?  I suppose that strictly speaking it is, but it just continues a process that we have been using for thousands of years.  Modern gene splicing makes it easier to create crops with desirable characteristics and also easier to make sure undesirable traits are prevented or eliminated.

GMOs have been a controversial topic in the European Union.  Last year, however, the European Commission’s Chief Scientific Advisor said “Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are no riskier than their conventionally farmed equivalents…There is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health, so that’s pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food.”

Professor Alan McHughen, a plant molecular geneticist at UC Riverside wrote a book called “Pandora’s Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods” in which he reviews the fears and facts surrounding GMOs.. McHughen is generally in favor of GMOs.  In a recent article he claims:

“GMO technologies have been around since the early 1970s and have given us many useful products, from human insulin to safer crops grown with fewer pesticides. Moreover, in over 30 years of experience, according to authoritative sources such as the U.S. National Academies and the American Medical Association, there is not one documented case of harm to humans, animals or the environment from GM products.”

McHughen does note that  “Recently, French scientist Gilles-Éric Séralini and his team published a peer-reviewed paper that claimed harm to test animals after they were fed GM corn for two years.”

Andrew Revkin of the New York Times writes of that study here.  The study claimed to find big impacts on longevity and cancer rates in rats fed Roundup-ready corn.  Revkin notes some red-flags in the study: “One issue is that, while the experiments ran for two years, far longer than most rat studies of food safety, the chosen rat breed commonly develops tumors after two years. Combined with small sample size (the different test groups had 20 animals each), this has led even some advocates for GMO labeling to question the results….Another red flag was that tumor rates didn’t increase in line with the dose of GMOs fed to animals, as scientists would expect to see if the genetically engineered corn were to blame…”

A study reported in Food and Chemical Toxicology, April, 2012, examined 12 long-term projects and 12 multi-generational studies of the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale (a hybrid of wheat and rye) on animal health.  ” Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed.”

One oft cited concern is allergic reaction to food.  Gene modification involves substituting or adding a protein, and almost any protein can be an allergen.  If you do an internet search of “GMO” and “allergies” you will find thousands of sites expressing concern but almost none providing any clinical evidence of GMO-caused allergies.  When American-grown Starlink corn was first introduced into the UK, many people claimed asthma symptoms worsened.  The CDC investigated but could not find a link.  GMO soybeans have also been accused of causing allergies.  A Korean clinical study found no difference in reactions to GMO and non-GMO soybeans.  Ironically, I saw that there are some attempts to reduce food allergies, such as to peanuts, through genetic modification. By law, if a new protein trait has been added, the protein must be shown to be neither toxic nor allergenic.

As far as I can tell, there are no significant health safety issues associated with GMO foods.  Calls for labeling such as the one reportedrecently in the Arizona Daily Star seem to be based on ignorance and fear rather than evidence.  If, however, there is some real proof that certain GMO foods cause adverse effects (like peanuts allergies), then such products should be labeled. We have been using GMO foods for a long time and, so far, no such danger has been identified.

For more information see an article by molecular biologist Michael Eisen “How Bt Corn And Roundup Ready Soy Work – And Why They Should Not Scare You.”  He writes: “Approximately 90% of soybeans, maize, cotton and sugar beets grown in the US are have been genetically modified to produce a protein that kills common insect pests or to make them highly tolerant of an herbicide used to control weeds, or in some cases both. To make a rational judgment about whether these specific GMOs are good or bad, it’s important to understand exactly what they are and how they work.”  He also notes that use of GMOs has greatly reduced the need for pesticides. See the rest of his article here.

Please take note: This post is about food safety and does not address the separate issue of possible cross-pollination from GMO crops, an issue of great economic concern to organic farmers.  However, I will mention that there are methods to minimize or prevent cross-pollination as discussed by the University of Minnesota here and the University of Arizona here. Organic farmers can also use GMO-resistant strains. For instance, a new lineage of organic corn hybrids, known as PuraMaize®, seek to end the battle of GMO corn contamination. Using a natural gene blocking system, these organic hybrids are able to prevent fertilization of foreign GMO and colored corn varieties.

The English name, “limberbush” is given due to the fact that the branches are extremely pliable and contain natural latex rubber.

The photos in this post are of Jatropha cardiophylla.which reaches its northern limit just a few miles north of Tucson.  The other limberbush is Jatropha cuneata which inhabits the Yuma area and points south.  Both species occur below elevations of 4,000 feet.  See more photos of both species at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum digital library  here.

Limberbush is a shrubby succulent.  Cardiophylla gets up to three feet high and Cuneata can get up to six feet high.  Both have reddish-brown bark on the branches which are semisucculent.  The bulk of the plant is underground with extensive roots that give rise to the branches.

For most of the year, the plants are leafless.  Just prior to the monsoon, the humidity in the air will cause the plants to produce buds which turn into bright green, heart-shaped leaves when the rains come.  Flowers are tiny, yellowish-white bells.

The O’odham and Seri people use limberbush extensively in basketry. The branches are roasted, split and soaked through an elaborate process. They obtained red dye from the roots.

Limberbush is extremely astringent.  The native peoples used the sap or a poultice of mashed branches to soothe toothache, burns, bites, and stings.

A related plant, Jatropha curcas was being investigated by the University of Arizona as a possible biofuel because the seeds contain up to 37% oil.

See also:

Brittlebush and chewing gum

Creosote Bush, a Desert Survivor

Jojoba oil, good on the outside, bad on the inside

Mesquite Trees Provide Food and a Pharmacy

Back in 2002, the Department of Geosciences at San Francisco State University conducted an experiment to see how much vehicles would warm. (See full paper here) Below is a graph of results for a dark-colored car and a light-colored car. You can see that the cars heat quickly to uncomfortable and even dangerous levels. So, even if you think “I’ll just be gone a minute” don’t leave children or pets in the car.

The graph above shows results when the outside temperature was just about 75̊°F. The greenhouse heating effect becomes dangerous much more quickly when the outside temperature is warmer. If, for instance, the outside temperature is 90̊°F, the inside can get to 110̊°F within 15 minutes.

The table below compares the heating results over time between a car with closed windows versus a car with windows open 1.5 inches. You can see that “cracking” the windows does not make much difference, especially for longer time periods.

(h/t Anthony Watts)