Uranium Mining in the Grand Canyon

Someone posted this on my Facebook ... and I carefully analyzed it
I think they were duped into thinking this is a good idea because a bunch of ties tangled words on a National Stage... but make no
mistake about it... This is detrimental... What do you think?
Who are we helping? They say American Soldiers (?) and American Jobs but at what expense?

Check it out... youtube.com/watch?v=MXOTlVj…

Im curious... I wonder how much Tax input those 4000 people in
the economically strained Northern Region make up in the entire scope
of the State. If we "lose" those jobs... how much does the state really pay? Are they a tax burden that will suddenly be released if they get this "job"... and if so, for how long? In my opinion , were simply forestalling the inevitable...at the cost of our future generations.

Those's pig fu.... should leave the land alone. It would be a horrible thing if any of the uranium were to get in the the water shed. there are much better ways for power then nuclear.

I hope the land will become wild!!

Robin like the bird wrote:Those's pig fu.... should leave the land alone. It would be a horrible thing if any of the uranium were to get in the the water shed. there are much better ways for power then nuclear. I hope the land will become wild!!

like coal, oil, and natural gas?

I have nothing against responsible uranium mining; but object to this location for sure. Plenty of open BLM land to go mine; leave the Canyon area alone please.

Woodchuck ATC wrote:I have nothing against responsible uranium mining; but object to this location for sure. Plenty of open BLM land to go mine; leave the Canyon area alone please.

Withdrawal proposals

I don't think anyone is calling to mine the Grand Canyon. The withdrawals would take place in other land agencies (BLM and more).

Ben Beard wrote: Withdrawal proposals I don't think anyone is calling to mine the Grand Canyon. The withdrawals would take place in other land agencies (BLM and more).

Clarify: the Canyon area, anything within the area is what I mean.

GOP bids to stop Grand Canyon mine ban

This is supposed to generate an annual payroll of $40 million, and create some 4000 jobs for Arizonans and 1000-3000 jobs for Utah. If my facts are correct, then 40,000,000 divided by 7000 potential jobs, yields $5,714 annually to each worker. WOW! That really is going help struggling families. You guys are brilliant!

eMurdock wrote:Here is an interesting letter to the Wall Street Journal: The Wall Street Journal published Kris Hefton’s Letter to the Editor today. Kris is Director, VANE Minerals (US) Inc., a member of the Arizona Geological Society and SME, and a long-time exploration geologist. ---------------------------------------------------- URANIUM MINES DON’T POSE A THREAT (WSJ, 10/17/2011) The letters defending Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (Oct. 5) are typical of environmental groups' manipulation of facts. The Orphan uranium mine is a poster child of those intent on discrediting the mining industry. The mine operated on a patented mining claim applied for by one of Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders and signed by President Roosevelt himself (who started the national park system). In the 1980s, the Park Service declined an offer by a uranium company to remediate the site at company expense. In 2008, the Park Service started its own reclamation using taxpayer funds. This despite the fact that: There is no documented harm to wildlife around the mine (or any of the sites the Interior Department refers to), no proof that the elevated uranium level in the drainage below the mine is from mining instead of being from nature because the ore deposit is exposed at surface and because of pleas for a remediation plan that would preserve some of the structures for historical reasons. Mining will not eliminate tourism jobs but it will provide more jobs and an alternative for wages two to four times the average for tourism jobs, which now stand at just above the U.S. poverty line. The Environmental Working Group's letter raises the issue of a threat to drinking water, a favorite point used to incite alarm. In 2009, the EWG posted an article on its website about a study that contradicts the Bureau of Land Management by demonstrating that recent and future mining has and will not raise the natural, but low, content of uranium in the Colorado River. EWG removed this article when someone realized that it was not in line with its goals. Kris Hefton Tucson, Ariz.

Mining companies have been drawn to the Grand Canyon area since the 1940s, because of large quantities of high-grade uranium that fuelled the nuclear weapons and nuclear power industries in the US.

But fast-paced nuclear power programmes in countries such as China and Korea are fuelling a new rush for "hard rock", and have sent uranium prices soaring from $7.10 a pound in 2001, to $63.88 a pound in 2011.

Vane Minerals, a UK-based company, has submitted approximately 700 claims. Kristopher Hefton, the company's director and chief operating officer, said: "The deposits are among the highest-grade deposits that you can find in the United States, so they are a good target for exploration and mining."

Sounds like Kris Hefton is all about making money at anyone's expense.

there are some test tunnels in marble canyon at river level that are hundreds of feet long, they were for a dam though not mining. Lots of old asbestos mines throughout the canyon too. Nuclear power is fine but large scale mining operations in the GC would be a shame, especially with the history of tailings getting into the watershed and other things along those lines.

Costas wrote:This is supposed to generate an annual payroll of $40 million, and create some 4000 jobs for Arizonans and 1000-3000 jobs for Utah. If my facts are correct, then 40,000,000 divided by 7000 potential jobs, yields $5,714 annually to each worker. WOW! That really is going help struggling families. You guys are brilliant!

They don't call it trickle down for nothing! The bigger question and probably not published is just how much trickles up into the pockets of the ruling class.

eMurdock wrote:In the 1980s, the Park Service declined an offer by a uranium company to remediate the site at company expense. In 2008, the Park Service started its own reclamation using taxpayer funds. This despite the fact that: There is no documented harm to wildlife around the mine (or any of the sites the Interior Department refers to), no proof that the elevated uranium level in the drainage below the mine is from mining instead of being from nature because the ore deposit is exposed at surface and because of pleas for a remediation plan that would preserve some of the structures for historical reasons.

The current remediation plan involves a few contractors, a few volunteer interns working for $75 a week, and folks voluneering for free on the weekends. The goal of the remediation is to restore native vegetation to the disturbed area, and minimize the extent of further tailings leaching. The Horseshoe Mesa mine is a good example of the risks that unresolved piles of uranium tailings bring, such as frequent public access of areas of appreciable radioactivity. Pity that we didn't have that company do any work in the 80's, though!

Either way, not too many of us that work up here on the Kaibab Plateau and at the Canyon are all that thrilled about the prospect of more uranium mining. It might be lucrative, but the limestone aquifer beneath us is a sensitive one, and thorium is the nuclear fuel of the future anyways.

Joseph Monfeli wrote: The current remediation plan involves a few contractors, a few volunteer interns working for $75 a week, and folks voluneering for free on the weekends. The goal of the remediation is to restore native vegetation to the disturbed area, and minimize the extent of further tailings leaching. The Horseshoe Mesa mine is a good example of the risks that unresolved piles of uranium tailings bring, such as frequent public access of areas of appreciable radioactivity. Pity that we didn't have that company do any work in the 80's, though! Either way, not too many of us that work up here on the Kaibab Plateau and at the Canyon are all that thrilled about the prospect of more uranium mining. It might be lucrative, but the limestone aquifer beneath us is a sensitive one, and thorium is the nuclear fuel of the future anyways.

And where do you think Thorium comes from. The air?

For the record, I'm opposed to mining around grand canyon.

However baseless opposition to mining in general is silly. Areva and Cameco have been mining uranium safely for a long time.