Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Copper or water

There was a meeting in Elgin last night to discuss the state of debate over whether or not mining corporations will strip still more mountains south of Tucson searching for copper ore.

I have heard estimates of up to $8 billion worth of copper in the area, based on today's prices ... and if prices go up (which, given the demands of the emerging Indian and Chinese economies seems the way to bet) the value of that copper will only go up as well.

That's a lot of money coming into the area, and also a fair number of jobs. A no-brainer, one would think, particularly given the recession right now, huh? Not so fast.

Not surprisingly, a number of farmers and environmentalists are less than thrilled at the notion. There is a bigger problem, however. As x4mr noted in early April the real concern isn't just the ugliness of open pit mining and the waste it produces, but rather water ... or, more particularly, lack thereof. This link provides a short overview on how much water mines used in 1997 ... hint: a lot.

If Tucson were located where Seattle is, say, that wouldn't be such a big deal ... sadly, that's not the case. Tucson is, in fact, located in a desert, a fact the mining companies (and, for that matter, golf resort owners) try to get everyone to overlook.

Since those who graduate with science and engineering jobs and quickly get out of town in search of the actual well-paying jobs ... you know, jobs like those TREO and other organizations repeatedly promise Tucson is on the verge of getting, but which continuously fail to arrive, through no fault of TREO et. al., of course ... fail to offset the influx from retirees and other sources, the metro population figures to to keep on expanding beyond the 1 million mark it hit last fall. All those people need water ... jobs are nice, but water is a necessity.

Giffords and Grijalva have both come out against the mining, and it's my understanding Giffords was at the Elgin meeting to discuss what she was trying to do to prevent it. Since this falls within her district, Grijalva can provide advice and support, but it's really up to her to lead any fight. Given how favorable current law is toward mines (the statutes in question date back to the 19th century), it's an uphill struggle. How it turns out will effect everyone in Southern Arizona, one way or another.

2 comments:

TexPatriate said...

Interesting article here on an old Oklahoma mining town that is now played out.

One of the quotes in the article describes it as the worst current Superfund site -- "In 1983 EPA ranked Picher the country's most hazardous Superfund site, worse than Love Canal."

I really can't see the current copper companies willing to pony up any "what-if" money for their potential disasters, either. Just yank the stuff that's worth anything out of the ground, selfishly use up all the natural resources, take all the money to the bank, and let the Federal Government deal with whatever the crap is that's left behind -- because we all know that there will be crap left behind for someone else to clean up.

Kinda like this little sinkhole.

x4mr said...

Both you and Texpat are spot on.

My speculation is that the mine will find the rhetoric and promises to get the green light.

Sirocco (I know Texpat is not local and cute), if you have the opportunity you should support Donna Branch-Gilby. Election integrity and water are her biggest issues.

At the end of the day, while the mine will produce employment and tax revenue, it will not be sufficient to cover the true water and environmental impact.

We face a water train wreck WITHOUT THE MINE.

I'm moving to Texpat's neighborhood before the mine gets built.