Curis is trying to develop a copper mine near Florence (see map at bottom of this post). The mine would be an underground, in-situ leach operation which would not mine any rock, but would pump acidic solutions (99.7 percent water and 0.3 percent sulfuric acid) into the ground to dissolve copper. An overlying clay layer would prevent the acidic solutions from contaminating the drinking water supply according to Curis. See my post “Florence Copper another mining controversy” for background on this story and for maps.

According to Curis Resources: “The Florence Copper site hosts a shallowly buried porphyry copper deposit with measured and indicated oxide mineral resources of 429.5 million tons grading 0.331% total copper (at a 0.05% total copper cutoff) and containing 2.84 billion pounds of copper.”

According to an article in the Phoenix Business Journal, a feasibility study conducted by Tucson-based M3 Engineering and Technology Corp estimates that over the projected 13-year life of the project, Curis will pay $162 million in royalties to the State of Arizona, $629 million in state and federal income taxes, $75 million in property taxes, and create as many as 240 jobs in Florence.

The main opponents of the mine, other than the usual anti-mining activists, are local real estate developers (Pulte Homes, Sunbelt Holdings, Nathan & Associates and an investment group called Southwest Value Partners) who want to construct housing developments on surrounding land (see map in my earlier post here). Together, these forces have convinced the town council to oppose the mine.

Curis is threatening to sue the City of Florence over its eminent domain action on the $500 million project. Ironically, the City of Florence is justifying the taking by proposing to use the land as a wastewater treatment plant, just what developers would like to see bordering their housing projects.

According to the Phoenix Business Journal,  ”Curis attorney Shane Ham said the town could be on the hook for some hefty legal bills or compensation payments if it loses the eminent domain case.” “Ham said the town has to prove it has legitimate public interest in seizing the land for a water treatment plant or another use. Otherwise, Arizona law says the town would have to pay Curis’ legal bills. Ham also said the courts could determine the cost of the property based on its mining potential. That could translate into Florence having to pay ” hundreds of millions of dollars” to Curis if it wants the property, and city taxpayers would be left holding the bag.

A March 6 press release from Curis Resources says in part:

The law in Arizona and the United States places a high value on the right to own private property and heavily restricts government bodies from unwarranted takings of private property. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “[n]o person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Hence, Curis has no doubt that the courts will not permit the Town to follow through with this Council authorization.

The use of eminent domain comes with onerous legal burdens of proof and costs for the Town if it fails to meet them. Given the tremendous amount of vacant desert land in the region of the Town and the typically small footprint of a wastewater treatment plant, the selection of Curis’ entire private property holdings as a potential site for a wastewater treatment plant lacks foundation.

The Town’s attempted action does not include the 160-acre state trust land parcel on which Curis can operate for nine years, including the Phase 1 production test facility and the first years of commercial operations of Florence Copper. Once final permits are received, Curis plans to continue to move forward with the Phase 1 production test facility in the near-term. The Phase 1 production test facility is intended to demonstrate the safeness of the project, that it operates well within the parameters established by the State (ADEQ) and the Federal (EPA) agencies, and that it provides significant employment and economic benefits and opportunities in the Town and region.

Curis has advised the Town that it is willing to meet, discuss and address any and all concerns with respect to the proposed Florence Copper development, including the ability to accommodate the wastewater treatment facility. The Company remains committed to an open and respectful dialogue with the elected officials and citizens of the community.

At a time when communities are struggling for revenue, opposition to such a revenue-producing ventures makes little sense, but apparently the Florence town council has the same anti-business mind set as Pima County supervisors, who oppose the Rosemont mine and its economic benefits.

Will the NIMBYs prevail?

]]> http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/03/07/eminent-domain-action-by-city-of-florence-against-curis-resources-may-come-back-to-bite-them/feed/ 1 http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/02/25/the-copper-creek-area-the-next-mining-venture-and-controversy/ http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/02/25/the-copper-creek-area-the-next-mining-venture-and-controversy/#comments Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:33:37 +0000 Jonathan DuHamel http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/?p=1723 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, see location map below. According to a story in the Arizona Daily Star, 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.

The mining district was originally organized in 1883 and there has been some mining and much on-going exploration ever since (see history here). I was involved in some of that exploration.

The property has the potential for a large copper mine, however, most of the known primary mineralization is at a depth of between 1,500 to 3,000 feet below the surface, too deep for an open pit.

What attracted prospectors to the area are hundreds of mineralized breccia pipes which reach the surface.

As the mineralizing pluton was emplaced at depth, the magma pressure and pressure from hydrothermal fluids (hot water and gas), followed fractures to the surface, further fracturing the rock and depositing minerals in the open spaces around the rock fragments, forming irregular, pipe-like structures. Redhawk has a good, concise explanation of the geology here.

Redhawk Resources estimates a resource of 7.75 billion pounds of copper, 150 million pounds of molybdenum, and 32 million ounces of silver at a 0.2% copper equivalent cut-off grade. (The cut-off grade is the level of mineralization below which it is not economic to mine. Any grade above cut-off is economic to mine.) According to Redhawk, the ore grade of measured reserves is 0.72% copper, 0.013% molybdenum, and 2.63 ppm silver. To put that in perspective, the open pit Sierrita mine near Green Valley is operating profitably with an ore grade of 0.24% copper, 0.026% molybdenum, and 1.42 ppm silver. Of course, underground mining is more expensive than open pit mining.

Mining companies usually calculate the value of the mineral deposit at several cut-off grades to allow for variations in mining costs, market prices, cost of mining regulations, taxes and royalties. At the very high cut-off grade of 0.5% copper equivalent, RedHawk estimates the deposit contains mineable resources of 3.4 billion pounds of copper, 69 million pounds of molybdenum, and almost 16 million ounces of silver. This is still a substantial deposit. Remember, “ore” is that part of the mineralization that can be mined at a profit.

The Star reports that environmental organizations such as the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club are “concerned.” That means, of course, that environmentalists will, as usual, be opposed to resource production and will probably come up with many imagined excuses why the mine should not be developed. Let the games begin.

See also:

Florence Copper another mining controversy

Oracle Ridge mine may re-open next year

Pima County versus Rosemont

The I-10 copper deposit

Sierrita Mine is only U.S. source of Rhenium

Surprising Structure of the Copper Deposits near Green Valley, Arizona

Old mines of the Tucson Mountains

Once upon a time in Crown King

Gold of Cañada del Oro and rumors of treasure

Mining and the bureaucracy

To help celebrate this anniversary, AZGS has created a special webpage:

http://www.azgs.az.gov/125th-anniversary-azgs.shtml

Included on that page is “Geosnaps – Image of the Day” a new photo every day depicting some aspect of Arizona geology or mining history.

Some other features will include:

Arizona Mining Review – a monthly webinar hosted by State Geologist Lee Allison to discuss Arizona mining – past, present and future.

Release of new & old geologic products bearing the 1888 – 2013, 125th anniversary logo.

Timeline graphic demarcating milestones in the history of Arizona geology.

A retrospective review on the state of geology of Arizona ca. 1888. Arizona Geology Magazine 125th year anniversary issue.

125th anniversary field trip(s).

Beginning January 23, there is the “Arizona Mining Review” with news and updates on the state of Arizona mining. Each month they will introduce a new topic and select a format – featured guest, panel discussion, Q&A session – to draw the most out of the topic.

Visit the anniversary site often.

To begin mining, Rosemont Copper must obtain approvals and permits from local, state, and federal agencies. Rosemont started the process in July, 2006. I commented on this bureaucratic quagmire in my post: Mining and the bureaucracy.

Upchurch attributed the delay to pending action by several agencies:

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) is considering listing as endangered, or imposition of critical habitat for the jaguar, ocelot and several other species. Under the Endangered Species Act, the Forest Service must complete a “section 7 consultation” with FWS before it can issue a decision. Upchurch anticipates a decision from FWS in January or February, 2013. Note that Arizona Game & Fish recommends that FWS withdraw its proposal for jaguar critical habitat (see here), because “conservation of the species is entirely reliant on activities in the jaguar’s primary habitat of Central and South America to be successful. Lands in Arizona and New Mexico make up less than one percent of the species’ historic range and are not essential to the conservation of the species.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is still considering air quality impact due to particulate matter that may be released by the mining operation. Rosemont will submit updated air quality models this month. It is anticipated that Arizona Department of Environmental Quality will issue its air quality permit in December, which will probably show that Rosemont is in compliance with all state and federal regulations.

The Forest Service must coordinate with the Corps of Engineers concerning impacts on waterways, but this is somewhat of a circular argument since the Corps of Engineers can’t issue an opinion until it sees the Forest Service’s Final Environmental Impact Statement.

There are issues with 11 Indian Tribes. The mine site is alleged to contain up to 80 cultural sites, including burial sites, that must be considered and mitigated according to the National Historic Preservation Act.

Upchurch said that the process is about 85% to 90% complete. That would seem to preclude calls for starting all over again, something which Pima County and Representative Ron Barber have been promoting. Upchurch also said that the water issues are “mostly” resolved. What remains are mitigation for possible impacts to a few nearby water wells. Upchurch sees nothing in the water issue that would preclude the Forest Service from issuing its final report.

At the meeting, one “reporter,” John Dougherty, producer of an attack documentary film against Rosemont, several times commented that Rosemont’s proposed dry stacking method for tailings would result in the largest such dry stacked tailings dump in the world. Dougherty was implying some imagined danger. However, dry stacking of tailings is a much more stable method than conventional wet tailings. It also saves and recycles water. (See my post on dry stacking here.) This is an example of one of the many spurious issues with which Rosemont and the Forest Service have to contend. Dougherty’s comments got no traction from Upchurch.

In general, Upchurch said that as they get more and more information, the information shows that the mining project will have fewer detrimental impacts than some fear or allege.

See reporter Tony Davis’ take on the meeting in the Arizona Daily Star here.

As Tony quoted me in his article: “The process to approve this mine seems endless, and many people are frustrated. ..Maybe it means the laws controlling the process need to be changed.” Indeed, much of the delay is caused by inefficiency and lack of coordination in and among federal agencies. The Rosemont saga is nearing its seventh year in bureaucratic purgatory. Meanwhile, the projected benefits for jobs and our economy remain deferred.

]]> http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/11/19/forest-service-closing-in-on-final-rosemont-report/feed/ 31 http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/10/25/the-importance-of-minerals-to-our-economy-and-national-security/ http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/10/25/the-importance-of-minerals-to-our-economy-and-national-security/#comments Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:41:20 +0000 Jonathan DuHamel http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/?p=1559 Without minerals we would not have electricity, food, or shelter. Minerals make today’s technology-based life possible, but that’s something many of us take for granted. We want the benefits from those minerals, but some want mining of minerals to be in somebody else’s neighborhood.

Here in Arizona, which produces about two-thirds of the nations’ domestically mined copper, there is opposition to mining projects such as the Resolution copper/gold mine near Superior, the Rosemont mine near Tucson (see here, here, here and here), Curis Resources’ proposed copper mine near Florence, uranium mining north of the Grand Canyon, and even a small marble deposit near Dragoon.

Let’s step back for a moment and review some benefits and importance of mineral production (data from the National Mining Association, see more detail here).

In 2011, $669 billion worth of processed mineral materials were used by businesses including construction, manufacturing and agriculture to add more than $2.2 trillion to the U.S. economy. Minerals were put to use in lifesaving medical devices, our nation’s infrastructure, defense technologies, and the computers and communications systems that connect us to the world. In Arizona, the value of mineral production is about $8.25 billion.

Though America has abundant mineral resources, our ability to secure these critical materials amid rising global competition is threatened by an outdated permitting process and regulations that delay mining projects for years, in some cases, up to a decade or more. (See Mining and the bureaucracy.)

U.S. minerals mining supports more than 1.2 million jobs. A job in U.S. metal ore mining is one of the highest paying in the private sector, with an average salary of $85,504 a year (2011 average salary) and often climbing above $100,000 for experienced workers.

Our increasingly technological society needs as many as 60 different minerals or their constituent elements that are used in fabricating the high-speed, high-capacity integrated circuits that are crucial to this technology.

Though U.S. mines play an important role in meeting domestic demand for many minerals, American industries currently rely on foreign suppliers for more than half the minerals they use, a substantial increase from 30 years ago. Our growing dependence on imports leaves us vulnerable to supply scarcity brought on by high demand and disruptions in the supply chain. For instance, the U.S. relies on China for 79 percent of rare earth minerals.

The U.S. Department of Defense uses nearly three-quarters of a million tons of minerals every year in the technologies that protect our nation. But with our growing reliance on imports for an ever-widening range of minerals, the United States is now at greater risk of facing supply disruptions.

U.S. mineral production paid more than $16.5 billion in federal taxes and $10.5 billion in state and local taxes in 2010. Although mining operations disturb the local scenery, over 2.6 million acres have been reclaimed and restored in the past 30 years.

Minerals make our standard of living possible. To ensure that standard, we must make certain regulations are consistently guided by sound science and economic reality rather than political agendas.

For those of you who are against mining, I invite you to think of all you would have to give up without it.

The Southern Arizona Business Coalition (SABC), an advocate for Rosemont, wanted to know how much time Pima County officials spent on Rosemont copper mine related business over the last two years. One of SABC’s interests was to find out if Pima County officials were using taxpayer money to aid groups that are opposed to the mine, as Pima County is.

SABC sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the County asking for:

“Any and all documents, timesheets, salaries, projections, calendars, meeting notes, audits, expense reports, budgets, reports, communications, correspondence, emails or other electronic transmissions relating to the amount of time and hours worked on any matters relating to the Rosemont Copper Project by any of your employees, representatives and/or consultants…..”

SABC did receive some information but much was missing. Pima County offered three excuses for its failure to provide the requested information:

1) The “majority of departments do not maintain records indicating time spent on a specific project.”

This excuse suggests that the County should change its operating procedures so that they are more accountable and transparent. Businesses require accountability from their employees. Even I, as a largely free-ranging geologist, had to account for time spent so the company could properly attribute time and expenses to specific budget items. Why doesn’t Pima County require this employee accountability?

SABC estimates that 38 County employees spent at least 10 percent of their time over the last two years on the Rosemont issue. That time cost taxpayers over $400,000 per year. And SABC estimates approximately 3% of staff time was spent over the previous 3+ years. Of course, at least some of that time would be legitimate processing of required permits, but how do we know how much. As I mentioned above, how much time and taxpayer money was spent on, shall we say, extracurricular activity that could aid opponents of the mine? Pima County will not or cannot say. Since the County did not provide adequate time allocation for the staff and legal office, SABC made assumptions based on previous information and experience in this issue and estimated that the County spent approximately $1 million on staff time (including Supervisors and their staff), outside consultants and legal fees fighting Rosemont.

2) The County Attorneys Office claimed attorney-client privilege regarding billing records.

This is a spurious argument since the attorneys are either County attorneys or attorneys hired by the County and the County is also the client. The right hand can’t disclose what the left hand is doing? This is another transparency issue. The County Attorney could have provided time allocation without violating attorney client privilege, but chose not to.

SABC says the County “would not have incurred $97,000 in attorneys’ fees had it not abused its discretion in denying the air quality permit to Rosemont. On November 30, 2011, the attorney working on behalf of Pima County found that the County’s ‘decision to deny Rosemont’s permit application . . . was contrary to law.’ Further, a Superior Court Ruling, dated July 5, 2012, determined that the Pima County Air Quality Hearing Board ‘acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and that the abused their discretion.’ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has since taken over this process from the County. An additional $15,500 was spent by Pima County appealing the Arizona Corporation Commission line siting proceeding for the TEP power line to Rosemont. Again, they did not prevail.”

3) The County is “unable to provide documents that no longer exist.”

This is “the dog ate my homework” excuse. Pima County broke the law if it did not maintain official records. Arizona law requires the County to “carefully protect and preserve the records from deterioration, mutilation, loss or destruction and, when advisable, shall cause them to be properly repaired and renovated.” A.R.S. § 41-151.15; and A.R.S. § 39-121.

These excuses show lack of accountability, lack of transparency, and failure to follow the law on record keeping. Since Pima County has stated publicly it is against the Rosemont mine, one wonders how much time was deliberate delay and obfuscation in permit processing. SABC alleges that Pima County also wasted time and money by attempting to duplicate work done by 17 federal agencies.

Taxpayers deserve better County accountability no matter which side of the Rosemont issue we take.

See also:

Pima County versus Rosemont

Jaguars versus the Rosemont mine

Proposed Jaguar habitat in Arizona and New Mexico is scientifically and legally indefensible

Rosemont’s dry-stacked tailings will be greener than those near Green Valley

In Arizona we are witnessing governmental delays in the permitting process for the Rosemont copper mine south of Tucson.  Near the small town of Dragoon, Arizona, a proposed marble mine has been delayed for more than 15 years due to US Forest Service bureaucracy including establishing a Roadless Area which encompasses the quarry site, even though there is a dedicated county road to the quarry.  In Alaska, the EPA is delaying what could be one of the largest copper and gold mines in the world, the Pebble mine, because of some unwarranted concern over salmon.

Some of the permitting delays are due to activists in government and radical environmentalists who don’t want any development.  But much of the delay is caused by inefficiency and lack of coordination in and among federal agencies.

Hal Quinn, president of the National Mining Association notes that permit delays are among the biggest hurdles for mineral development.  “The length, complexity and uncertainty of the permitting process are the primary reasons investors give for not investing is U.S. minerals mining. In the U.S., necessary government authorizations now take close to 10 years to secure, resulting in decreased competitiveness and increased reliance on foreign sources of minerals.”

These bureaucratic delays affect businesses other than mining, because the supply of raw materials gets harder to obtain and more expensive.

This is not just a recent problem, but one that is growing as more and more agencies are embracing “green” or “sustainable” principles.  In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council found that: “The process has become much slower and more costly than was originally intended or than it needs to be. It commonly imposes data collection and analysis requirements on the applicant and the regulatory agency that are poorly coordinated, excessively expensive, and of uneven value in protecting the environment. Mining operators are entitled to a permitting process that is as timely and cost effective as possible while still achieving compliance with all statutes and regulations.”  There has been no improvement since that study.

Quinn notes that “Behre Dolbear, the international consulting firm that advises mining companies globally, has identified the U.S. as having one of the longest permitting processes in the world for mining projects, placing domestic mining investments at a competitive disadvantage.”  It also means  that we will need to import more and more of our minerals.

The US Geological Survey studied domestic permitting and found that “permitting time frames are often lengthy and unpredictable” sometimes taking as long as 17 years and even with an “expedited permitting schedule” taking seven years.

Quinn says that “more efficient permitting does not mean less environmental protection.”  Among the needed reforms in the permitting process are:

Clearly defining the responsibilities of a lead agency to include the establishment of binding time frames, coordination with other agencies and reliance on existing data and reviews.  Limiting the total review process for issuing permits to 30 months unless signatories to the permitting time line agree to an extension. Reduce delays posed by litigation over permitting decisions by requiring challenges to be filed within 60 days of the final agency action.

It’s not just the mining industry that suffers under a bureaucratic bottleneck.  Investor’s Business Daily notes that the Obama administration has issued more regulations than Bush and Clinton combined.  Just the EPA and Department of Transportation have increased the regulatory burden on manufacturing by $142 billion per year.

If you want your automobiles and iPhones, a reliable electricity supply, transportation, and jobs, we need to cut the red tape and make access to and production of the raw materials for industry more efficient and timely.  That can all be done while providing rational environmental protection and in doing so will prove to be a boon to our economy.

See also:

Uncorrected Forest Service errors block marble mine

Why imposing royalties on hard rock mining is a bad idea

Pima County versus Rosemont

Uranium mining ban near Grand Canyon all politics, no science

Jaguar Listing and Habitat Designation Based on Junk Science

Jaguars versus the Rosemont mine

Clean Coal: Boon or Boondoggle?

EPA versus Arizona on regional haze issue

EPA war on coal threatens Tucson water supply

BLM Wild Lands Designation Attempts To Bypass Congress

Politics versus American Energy Security

In 1998, Alpha Calcit Fullstoff, an international producer of ground calcium carbonate, through its American subsidiary Alpha Calcit Arizona, acquired the unpatented mining claims on the property. Pilot testing, using proprietary optical scanning technology showed that the marble was suitable for premium quality, high brightness coatings and fillers used in the production of fine white paper.

Testing continued and by 2002 the Coronado National Forest approved a Plan of Operations and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to file an environmental impact statement.

At a scoping meeting, an inexperienced Forest Service geologist failed to consider the color, physical and chemical properties of the marble that would allow production of ground calcium carbonate products. That geologist concluded that the marble deposit may not be locatable (acquired by staking claims) under the Mining Law. That conclusion resulted in a campaign by environmental radicals which caused the Forest Service to cancel the Plan of Operations.

However, following metallurgical testing at the North Carolina State University Minerals lab, which showed that the marble did indeed have special qualities, the Forest Service decided that the quarry could be operated under regulations for locatable minerals and allowed exploration and testing to continue.

During this time, Coronado National Forest was engaged in the now infamous RARE II phase of the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation program. This was a program, prompted by the Wilderness Act of 1964, to assess areas of National Forest for inclusion in wilderness areas.

The criteria for inclusion in an official roadless area include:

1. The area had to have “Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality.”

2. The minimum size for consideration is 5,000 contiguous acres.

3. The roadless area had to be… roadless.

In spite of these criteria, the Forest Service created the 1,164 acre, Upper Dragoon Roadless Area which contains the mine and its road.

The road into the quarry (see photo above) predates Arizona statehood. The road, originally called Dragoon Marble Quarry Road, was renamed Lizard Lane and became a dedicated county road in 1924 and is listed as Forest Service road 689 on forest maps. Notice on the photo above that there is another road going up the canyon to the left of the quarry.

Internal Forest Service memos, obtained by Alpha Calcit from an FOIA action, show Forest Service personnel writing, “The marble quarry is a drastically disturbed site that is, all soil and vegetation has been removed over an area of approximately 14 acres. The entire area is surfaced by fractured rock. This type of disturbance is not consistent with roadless area characteristics.”

A 2004 Forest Service memo states, “At the time of authorization, the site was not in a designated roadless area. The area was inadvertently included when the map was created that displayed designated roadless areas.”  If it was a mistake, it is an amazing coincidence because the boundaries of the roadless area look like they were designed to target the marble quarry.

So, the Upper Dragoon Roadless Area officially exists, blocking development of the marble mine even though it fails on establishment criteria and the Forest Service claims it was created by mistake. That “mistake” remains uncorrected. The Forest Service finally approved a new Plan of Operations in 2006, but because the property lies within an official roadless area, a very strict and expensive environmental impact (EIS) statement is required. The Forest Service says that mining will “substantially alter the undeveloped character” of the roadless area, contradicting their own memo.

Alpha Calcit estimates the EIS would cost nearly $700,000 plus $400,000 for Forest Service administration, all for a 41-acre property. Such costs would kill the project.

I attempted to get the Forest Service’s side of the story. The first two calls to the Tucson office resulted in transfers to the twilight zone. On the third attempt, I spoke to the information officer, who could provide no relevant information, but promised to find some and get back to me. I’m still waiting.

The bogged-down bureaucracy is killing jobs, capital expenditures, and tax revenue for local school districts, Cochise County, and the state of Arizona. That’s your taxpayer dollars at work.

It is time that the Forest Service correct its mistake and release the area for development.

I note that the State of Wyoming and the Colorado Mining Association have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate the federal government’s Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The petitioners argue the U.S. Forest Service exceeded its authority in enacting the Roadless Rule by exercising power reserved solely for Congress. The roadless areas are de facto wilderness. The 1964 Wilderness Act says Congress alone designates wilderness areas.

For more examples of Forest Service bureaucratic stupidity see:

Tombstone versus the United States

Mega-fires in Southwest due to forest mismanagement

Do we need the US Forest Service?

The Fish & Wildlife Service also has questionable programs:

Buenos Aires National Game Refuge where Endangered Species and Illegal Immigration Collide

Jaguar Listing and Habitat Designation Based on Junk Science

The theme for March is mining and minerals.  The features include:

Mining Arizona’s Metals – interactive map of active mines in Arizona, Morenci mine flyover, and surface and underground mining techniques slide show.

Rock Products – Building Arizona – interactive cement plant tour, map with  locations and mineral commodities of more than 300 quarries or mines, videos and photo gallery.

Featured Artist – World renowned mineral photographer Jeff Scovil presenting a photo gallery of some of his best images of Arizona minerals, as well as a short video on “how to photograph minerals”.

Miners Story – Video gallery of the men and women of San Manuel recounting their experiences living and working in one of Arizona’s historic mining communities.

H. Mason Coggin Photo Collection – Arizona historic mines and miners photo gallery.

The Arizona Experience is a dynamic, multimedia, 4D web environment with interactive maps, hundreds – soon to be thousands – of images, historical time-lines, flyovers of iconic landscapes, interviews with Arizona leaders, featured artists, hours of videos – onsite and at the Arizona Experience YouTube channel, and oral histories that capture the experiences of the men and women that shaped the state.

According to Dr. Michael Conway of the Arizona Geological Survey, “We used Microsoft Research’s new Layerscape visualization software to produce the 3D flyovers, and we worked closely with ESRI to broadcast interactive maps that incorporate spatial data, content, interactive timelines, and photo galleries.  These dynamic tools and extraordinary content are tailor made for teachers challenging their students to explore Arizona’s past, examine its present, and imagine its future.”

Take a few minutes to look over the home page, and sample the various features.  There is more to it than initially meets the eye.  There are lots of nooks and crannies that bring up very interesting material.

Click on http://arizonaexperience.org/ to start your tour.

]]> http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/03/15/the-arizona-experience-a-new-online-tour-and-history-of-arizona/feed/ 4 http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/01/05/saginaw-hill-another-old-mine-in-a-tucson-area-neighborhood/ http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/01/05/saginaw-hill-another-old-mine-in-a-tucson-area-neighborhood/#comments Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:35:43 +0000 Jonathan DuHamel http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/?p=1142 Saginaw Hill is located about 10 miles southwest of downtown Tucson.  See general location on the map below.

The hill was home to several mines worked intermittently from the late 1800s to the mid 1900s.  Mindat.org describes three of the major workings:

The Saginaw Mine:

A former small surface and underground Cu-Zn-Pb-Ag-Au-Mo (copper, zinc, lead, silver, gold, molybdenum) mine located in the NE ¼ sec. 11 & NW sec. 12, T.15S., R.12E. Owned at times, or in part, by the Saginaw Mining Co.; and the Tucson Arizona Copper Co.

Mineralization is sparse, spotty, partly oxidized base metal sulfides along fissure zones in limestone lenses in silicified Cretaceous Amole Arkose. Ore control was quartz veins as siliceous replacements along fractures. Alteration included limonite, quartz, sericite, clay, pyrite, and garnetization-epidotization. Associated rock units include the Saginaw Hill Porphyry, latite. Weakly mineralized. Chalcopyrite & pyrite on the W side of the Saginaw property, copper oxides on the E side of the property (Papago Queen). Cerussite & galena on the S end of the property along rhyolite-limestone contact. The identified ore zone is 330 meters long.

Local structures include NE-trending fractures, brecciation. On the SE side of the fracture and extending 300 meters away is propylitized quartz monzonite. Local limonite and partly oxidized pyrite with minor copper silicates along the fracture zone.

Workings include shafts, pits, and minor underground workings. Worked prior to 1900 with a possible 100 tons of low-grade ore produced. Production was sporadic. Production of smelter flux from 1956-1959.  Has been prospected for porphyry copper. Prospect workings concentrated along N60E trend but no good fracture zone is exposed.

Palo Verde Mine:

 Worked intermittently from 1918 through 1954. Total production amounted to some 2,300 tons of ore averaging about 13% Zn, 2.2% Pb, 0.7% Cu, 2.5 oz. Ag/T and 0.06 oz. Au/T.

Papago Queen Mine:

 Mineralization is disseminated copper oxides and carbonates with minor molybdenum oxides in quartz veins and along fractures in a weakly altered, brecciated, and mineralized Laramide (?) porphyry stock.

Workings include tunnel and open cut operations. Sporadic production of copper ore occurred from 1917 to 1934, and of smelter flux in 1956 through 1959. Total output was some 3,700 tons averaging about 1% Cu and 0.5 oz. Ag/T.

This area had long been a favorite of mineral collectors.  It is one of the few places in the world  where peacock-blue cornetite is found.  Cornetite is a copper phosphate with the formula  Cu₃(PO₄)(OH)₃.

The Saginaw Hill mineralization is intimately related to the big copper mines west of Green Valley to the south.  That will be the subject of a future post.

Because subdivisions were encroaching on the area, Pima County investigated Saginaw Hill in about 1988 with the view of turning it into a park.  At the time, the mines were abandoned, there were mineralized dumps on the property.  An assessment of the property by Pima County officials found (surprisingly to them apparently) that the area contained concentrations of toxic heavy metals.

The County made several more assessments and by 2003, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) got involved.  See the BLM report here, it provides many photographs.  In 2005, the BLM was deciding what to do and there was much furor in the press.  See examples from the Tucson Citizen here and here.

The BLM filled in the many mine shafts which did pose a danger.  They also collected surface mineralization and dumps and buried the material on site to mitigate the imagined danger of heavy metal contamination.  The Google Earth photo below shows how the area looks now.  The orangish patch is were the material is buried.  Saginaw Hill is closed to mineral collectors.

See also:

Sierrita Mine is only U.S. source of Rhenium

The I-10 copper deposit

The Pontatoc mine in a north Tucson neighborhood

Florence Copper another mining controversy

Gold in Arizona

Gold of Cañada del Oro and rumors of treasure

Old mines of the Tucson Mountains

Oracle Ridge Mine on Mount Lemmon