Uranium claims spring up along Grand Canyon rim

Uranium claims spring up along Grand Canyon rim

A rush to extract uranium on public lands pits environmentalists, who worry about the local effect, against mining companies, which point out that nuclear power wouldn't contribute to global warming.




By Judy Pasternak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 4, 2008

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, ARIZ. -- Thanks to renewed interest in nuclear power, the United States is on the verge of a uranium mining boom, and nowhere is the hurry to stake claims more pronounced than in the districts flanking the Grand Canyon's storied sandstone cliffs.

On public lands within five miles of Grand Canyon National Park, there are now more than 1,100 uranium claims, compared with just 10 in January 2003, according to data from the Department of the Interior.

snip

And uranium is in short supply. In recent years, mines closed in Canada and West Africa, yet the United States as well as France and other European countries have announced intentions to expand nuclear power. Predictably, the price of uranium has soared -- to $65 a pound as of last week, from $9.70 a pound in 2002.

In the five Western states where uranium is mined in the U.S., 4,333 new claims were filed in 2004, according to the Interior Department; last year the number had swelled to 43,153.

snip

Uranium claims are also encroaching on stretches of Western parkland such as Arches National Park, Capitol Reef National Park and Canyonlands National Park, all in Utah, as well as a proposed wilderness area in Colorado called the Dolores River Canyon.

snip

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-uranium4-2008may04,0,6515870.story

The geological formations look similar to those in Northern New Mexico, where uranium was/is mined. I wonder if Native Americans will obtain some lucrative leases, like some of them did back in the oil boom days of early Oklahoma.

That's what our stalwart anti-nuclearists have been saying ... since about 1975.

--p!

and pollute our last wild places to scrape up the last crumbs of the stuff to make money for Cheney and his cronies, while only temporarily forestalling the inevitable?

That's what I thought....

How come there's not 1100 claims on that seawater you've been raving about?

That's what I thought....

Two years ago, when it was $9.00 a lb, those Arizona claims were worthless.

I wonder who's going to pay the cost of rehabilitating those lands, cleaning up the waste and dealing with the the health problems of the local citizens after they're done?

Why are there so many things wrong with the world? :shrug:

Is well worth it..

We have got to keep the reactors going at 100. Them slowing down to due supply issues would mean Coal use would skyrocket almost instantly to stabilize the grid.

There may be a 10 year break from more global warming and we do not need to push that by increasing consumption of coal.

Mining the rim of the Grand Canyon, or any other place in particular, isn't really necessary. There is plenty of nuclear material in the Earth, and we are getting it from only a minute fraction of the places where it is. We've explored less than 1% of the places where we could mine it, and mining is only one method of getting it.

Fred Hoyle spoke of petroleum as Humanity's "one-time inheritance". But it's fissile material -- especially Thorium -- that fits that bill better. Even with the most conservative technology and the most painstakingly environmentally-friendly extraction methods, we will have enough for a long, long, long, long time.

--p!

You repeatedly and continually make statements that you know are not true. I wonder what causes someone to do that?

If we had plenty of uranium, the price of it would not be skyrocketing. They would not be scheming to tear up the rim of the Grand Canyon looking for slight crumbs of it that might not even be there. They would not have to be resorting to pumping acid into the earth to flush out trace amounts of it.

"painstakingly environmentally-friendly extraction methods" do not exist. Uranium mining is an environmental nightmare. You are trying to sell us a defective product, and you are not a very good salesman...

--propaganda!

You've made it perfectly clear, in multiple cases, that you categorically consider any argument in favor of nukes to be lies, or propaganda, or possession by the undead spirit of Dick Cheney, etc. You've actually said (to me) that nobody can convince you otherwise, ever. Well, now that you've decoupled your opinion from any possible data, or argumentation, now or in the future, what part in this discussion can you play?

Yes, we get it. Any argument that I, or anybody else, ever makes will be denounced by you as lies. We can predict your response with 100% confidence, so it's pretty hard to conclude anything when you call me a liar.

method of mining uranium. That's what your little buddy is trying to sell us.

If he is not a liar, as I say that he is, then support his claims for him. He, obviously can't do it for himself.

Uranium mining is an environmental disaster of the first order. We are running out of easily obtainable ore, the price of it is rising, and the companies that mine it are resorting to increasingly despicable methods of wrenching the last crumbs of it from the earth. Those companies are sacheming to tear up our last Western wildlands going after it. Their main man in Washington is Dick Cheney.

Them are the facts, Dude. If you have a problem, it's not with me. If you deny reality, then people are going to call you on it.

describe for me what criteria you will accept for 'environmentally friendly.' Like, for instance, if I described something that reduced the impact to that of a typical steel or copper mine, would you consider that acceptable? By "impact," are you thinking purely in terms of Teh Radiation? Do I have to describe some scenario that sequesters all the radiation from mine tailings?

Yes to your first question.
And yes to your third question.

I'm prepared to throw up a dozen pictures and five videos of uranium mining sites, and links to websites from all the major environmental groups describing in situ mining and the threat ir represents to our Western wildlands, so make it good. I'll put up petitions for people to sign, too...

Sequestering mine tailings basically requires investing in the infrastructure to contain them while they are exposed to the environment, and then putting them back where they came from: into the mine. That way the unused material ends up where it started to begin with.

I'm actually interested that you felt it was satisfactory to meet the impact of other kinds of metal mining, since those mines are just as devastating, in fact much more so given that there are a lot more of them. I imagine you've seen what copper and iron mines look like. I know I have, living in the Copper State. And I've paddled through canyon stained day-glo orange from iron mining.

You should feel free to post your photos and videos. I'm completely in favor of holding uranium mines to higher standards, and paying more for it. I just don't separate them in my mind from other kinds of metal mining.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srVjPp1TwdA

I'm going to start a thread on this subject and we can all have our say....

"If we had plenty of uranium, the price of it would not be skyrocketing."


Spot market for Uranium Oxide, $65/lb, April 28, 2008
(It peaked at about $125 about a year ago. The price is now falling.)

"They would not be scheming to tear up the rim of the Grand Canyon looking for slight crumbs of it that might not even be there."

Let them scheme all they want. They won't get it. There are plenty of other places to look for uranium.

"They would not have to be resorting to pumping acid into the earth to flush out trace amounts of it. ... 'painstakingly environmentally-friendly extraction methods' do not exist. Uranium mining is an environmental nightmare."

This is not a nuclear issue. It is a mining issue.

Mining is the nightmare, and it's been the subject of environmental activism for decades. But it doesn't get attention until miners are trapped underground and an exciting rescue attempt is made.

Acid mining residue is a world-wide problem. (3 sources at random: http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/waterq/wqacidmine.html">`Exploring the Environment` -- a NASA kids` site, http://www.cee.vt.edu/ewr/environmental/teach/gwprimer/acidmine/acidmine.html">Virginia Tech, http://www.scrip.pa-conservation.org/aboutamd.htm">Acid Mine Drainage - AMD.) Most of it is the by-product of coal and iron mining, but not all of it. You are probably talking about http://www.meic.org/mining/cyanide_mining">cyanide-acid leach mining. It is particularly common -- and offensive -- in http://www.nodirtygold.org/poisoned_waters.cfm">gold mining. The http://www.nodirtygold.org/home.cfm">Dirty Gold website shows what an environmental nightmare that gold mining is:

If and when solar electric technology becomes practical for wide use, http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cadmium/">cadmium (Cd) will be in great demand. Cadmium is collected as a by-product of zinc, lead, or copper processing. Imagine a 1000-fold increase in such mining to supply cadmium telluride for thin-film solar cells. The amount of cyanide and acid residue carrying these incredibly poisonous elements will be greater than anything we have had to deal with. Heavy metal poisoning is far worse than radiation sickness, and unlike radionucleides, its toxicity never decays. Arsenic, mercury, and several other exotic heavy metals are also used in semiconductor manufacture.

Mining causes far more environmental damage than all human-produced sources of ionizing radiation. Period.

If you are concerned about the impact of mining, there are plenty of opportunities for activism. But be warned, most of them demand actual work, not sitting at the computer accusing strangers with whom you disagree of being liars.

"You are trying to sell us a defective product, and you are not a very good salesman... "

I am selling nothing. I am not starting a social movement. I am not selling records and videos of concerts, t-shirts, books, writing daring but inaccurate exposés, or participating in wild PR stunts to flaunt my moral cojones in the crusade to demonize nuclear fission. I'm presenting the case for nuclear energy, and showing how it relates to other sources of energy. And I post on several subjects unrelated to nuclear energy. I work to be as accurate as I can when I post -- especially when I post about nuclear energy. And I often post links.

It is just too easy to check this stuff out before going off and ranting. I trust that nobody here really likes citation wars and no matter what their opinion may be, I assume that everyone posts in good faith.

Well, almost everyone.

And if someone says something I disagree with, I don't jump up and down and scream "LIAR!" -- I post evidence to the contrary.

"... propaganda! "

"Lies". "Propaganda". You're pretty quick with those accusations.

What is your record with the truth?

You've accused me of taking money from the nuclear industry. You have claimed that I am a friend of the eeevil Cheney, that I minimized the risk of nuclear energy, and that I do this professionally. You have repeatedly misrepresented my views on a large number of subjects. And not just me, but anyone who has different opinions than you do.

"I wonder what causes someone to do that?"

I wonder about that, too. I trust that the people who read this will draw their own conclusions.

--p!

"Not only is nuclear waste recycling technology improving, new approaches are being developed to "denature" radioactive material, or to quickly render it non-radioactive. "

Yes you did.

It's BS.

Its "Propaganda"

Like all your other bull shit propaganda.

Fortunately, there are not too many people here stupid enough swallow your worthless conniving disinformation.

Keep trying, though, it has a certain entertainment value....

"new approaches are being developed to "denature" radioactive material, or to quickly render it non-radioactive. "

What a fuckin hoot!

Where did I ever say ...

it's okay to tear up our public lands
pollute our last wild places to scrape up the last crumbs of the stuff to make money for Cheney and his cronies

In your own mind, maybe.

How come there's not 1100 claims on that seawater you've been raving about?

What kind of claims? There have been several patents filed to extract uranium, thorium, gold, platinum, and other metals from seawater, mined phosphate salts, and dirt. Prototypes have been demonstrated and proof-of-concept engineering has been done. Much of it is proprietary, but some of this work is online. (Just as with solar energy technology.) However, you have to do a little work of your own to find the information. If you rage and rant at a web page in the hopes than it will tell you what you want to hear, you'll have a long wait.

That's what I thought....

You did? Your post is immaculately thought-free.

Speakers for the anti-nuclearist "movement" continue to insist that we are running critically short of uranium. Meanwhile, it remains about as common as tin. But making sound arguments isn't as much fun as making up stories, is it?

--p!