Tag Archives: Mining & Exploration

Lawmakers downplay possibility of U.P. uranium mining

Posted on by

But mining company spent more than $700,000 on U.P. uranium exploration in 2009

By Michigan Messenger’s: Eartha Jane Melzer 11/13/09 2:12 PM

http://michiganmessenger.com/30150/lawmakers-downplay-possibility-of-u-p-uranium-mining

Upper Peninsula lawmakers are railing against a ballot measure to create standards for uranium mining, claiming that no uranium ore has been discovered in Michigan. However, a Canadian uranium mining company says it’s found uranium in the U.P., scientists have warned that its uranium exploration could harm groundwater, and the Western Upper Peninsula Health Department is warning that residential wells in several counties already have elevated levels of the radioactive metal.

In a statement this week, Sen. Mike Prusi (D-Ishpeming), Sen. Jason Allen (R-Traverse City), Rep. Mike Lahti (D-Hancock), Rep. Steve Lindberg (D-Marquette) and Rep. Judy Nerat (D-Wallace) accused sponsors of a proposed 2010 ballot measure on mining of talking about uranium mining in order to scare people and destroy the mining industry.

“No ‘uranium mining’ activity has ever existed,” the lawmakers stated, “nor has any uranium ore been discovered, in our state.”

However, according to a July 2009 financial report from Bitterroot Resources Ltd., a 17-hole uranium exploration drilling program concluded last December “identified several areas which warrant additional exploration.” The company said it spent $717,403 on Michigan uranium exploration in the first nine months of 2009.

On the sections of the company website devoted to its Upper Peninsula uranium exploration Bitterroot states that early drilling “encountered a 0.6-metre interval containing 75 ppm U, including two 0.12-metre intervals containing more than 100 ppm U. These intervals are significant as they confirm that uranium-bearing fluids have been mobile within the Jacobsville Basin.”

The presence of uranium in this area is also known to local health officials. The Western Upper Peninsula Health Department has issued a uranium advisory.

“Scattered drinking water sources in the Western Upper Peninsula have been found to contain uranium in amounts that exceed the federal Maximum Contaminant Level,” the health department states. “The source of the uranium may be the shale deposits that run inconsistently through the Jacobsville Sandstone formation. Water supplies with radioactivity have been found in Baraga, Gogebic, Houghton, Keweenaw, and Ontonagon Counties.”

The department states that uranium-laced water may be associated with kidney damage and cancer and that people with wells constructed in the Jacobsville Sandstone formation should have their water tested for uranium.

Last year the National Forest Service granted permits for uranium exploration in the Ottawa National Forest and spokeswoman Lee Ann Atkinson told Michigan Messenger at the time that 50 test wells were authorized.

During the public comment period on this uranium exploration proposal by Trans Superior Resources, a subsidiary of Bitterroot Resources Ltd., Todd Warner, natural resources director for the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, noted that the company’s plan to bury drill cuttings on Forest Service land could result in radioactive compounds leaching into area groundwater.

“If a uranium ore body is disturbed in its natural geological setting, radium and polonium will inevitably be released into our environment,” Warner wrote in comments entered into the record. “The Forest Service has not noted that any additional or added precautions or testing is being required due to the potential or likely presence of uranium, radium, polonium and other radioactive elements.”

Because of the risk of chemical reactions that can cause minerals to contaminate the water supply, metallic mining requires permits from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, said Hal Fitch, director of the agency’s Office of Geological Survey. But due to what Fitch called “a weakness in the statute,” exploratory mineral wells in the rocky western half of the Upper Peninsula are exempt from permit requirements.

In the case of the uranium test wells in the national forests, the DEQ will visit and observe operations after being voluntarily contacted by the mining company, Fitch said.

The Michigan Save Our Water Committee says U.P. lawmakers are mischaracterizing their proposed ballot initiative.

“We are not talking about banning future uranium mining,” said spokesman Duncan Campbell. “We don’t have any regulations covering uranium, all we are asking that we have some regulations to cover uranium.”

Read more!

Houghton Mining Gazette writer, Kurt Hauglie covers the issue:

http://www.mininggazette.com/page/content.detail/id/507472.html

Gail Griffith responds to Shawn Carlson Letter to Mining Journal Editor:

No U.P Uranium?

In a recent letter to the Mining Journal titled “No U.P. Uranium”, there is a statement:  “There is no uranium ore anywhere in the state of Michigan.” The important word here is “ore”, which is defined as a naturally occurring material that can be profitably mined. This does not mean that there is no uranium in the state of Michigan. It means that no one has yet found of a profitable ore body.

The evidence for the presence  of uranium in the U.P. is strong.  The Western Upper Peninsula Health Department has issued an advisory for people with water wells in the Jacobsville sandstone formation in the Keweenaw Peninsula to have their water tested for uranium, because a 2003 study by a group at Michigan Tech found that about 25% of 300 wells tested in the area had levels of uranium  above what is considered safe by the national Environmental Protection Agency.

Since 2003, Bitterroot Resources has been exploring for uranium in the Ottawa State Forest in the Jacobsville sandstone.  In 2007, they found small amounts of uranium in drill cores.  Cameco, a Canadian company that is  one of the world’s biggest uranium suppliers, has given Bitterroot $1.7 million to do further exploration on the site.  New drilling was done in 2008, and the results are now being evaluated for follow-up.  Given that uranium prices have gone down from a peak of $140/lb. in 2004 to about $45/lb. today, even if this uranium body is large or rich, it may not be profitable now, but may well be later.

Mining for uranium is currently done by an process called in-situ leaching (ISL). This method does’t bring any ore to the surface, but rather pumps chemically-treated water into and through the ore body to dissolve the uranium and brings it to the surface, where it is extracted.  Treated water is pumped back in to dissolve more uranium.  The question is, where does the water come from, and where does it go?

Uranium deposits suitable for ISL are found  in permeable sand or sandstone that must be protected above and below by impermeable rock, and which are below the water table. This means that if there is any connection or leakage into any other water source, that water will be contaminated with uranium.   Further, the water used in the ISL process can’t be effectively restored to natural groundwater purity.

Michigan’s new Nonferrous Metallic Mineral Mining law.was written to deal with the threat of pollution by metallic sulfide ores and wastes that can create acidic, metal- laden water that must be carefully purified before being  released into the environment.  During the rule-making process, it was pointed out that uranium is a nonferrous metal, and could be mined under these rules, even though there were no provisions for the special precautions needed for radioactive materials.  The response by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality was that, yes, the “rules would apply to uranium mining, however, if uranium mining appears imminent, then the DEQ will review these rules for their adequacy to regulate such mining and determine revisions that may be needed”.

Part of the proposed  MIWater Ballot Initiative language speaks to this issue by  prohibiting uranium mining until new rules have been established.  It is clear that such rules are needed now, and a vote for the initiative would ensure this.  It’s all about our  water.

Gail Griffith
Retired Professor of Chemistry
Northern Michigan University

No U.P. uranium

To the Journal editor:
We’ve all heard the arguments. “Michigan must preserve its proud mining heritage.” Then the counter: “Our environment must be protected from sulfide and uranium mining.” And so the tired argument trudges on, the latest installment of which being known as the MiWater Ballot Initiative. An argument with no clear victors, perhaps for good reason – both sides have some fair points: mining is a valuable industry, but the environment is important, too. If only there were a tie-breaker, something to tip the scales and guide the undecided. Well perhaps there is – the issue of education.

One of the goals of the MiWater Ballot Initiative is to restrict “uranium mining” in Michigan, in response to local activists’ proclamations that “uranium ore” has already been found and that mining could be imminent; one popular calendar says uranium mining has already been proposed and another Web site calls it planned. The problem is, none of that is true.
As contributor to the “Mineralogy of Michigan” textbook and recipient of the Friends of Mineralogy award for a study of Michigan uranium, I present my knowledge as authoritative, so here are the scientific facts.

There is no uranium ore anywhere in the state of Michigan. And since there is no uranium ore, there are neither proposed uranium mines, nor planned uranium mines; statements to the contrary are absurd.

Yes, there has been uranium exploration throughout Michigan since about 1949, but this work has found squat; in the words of one geologist, “If you took all of Michigan’s uranium and threw in 50 cents, you’d have enough to buy a cup of coffee.” Michigan simply lacks mineable uranium deposits, and the finest mineralogists alive today (e.g., George Robinson, Michigan Tech University) do not believe any will be found – ever.

One of the concerns of environmental activism is the lack of credible scientific information within these groups, as exposed in a recent Newsweek article (April 2008). And that’s a problem. At a time when the greatest questions facing us globally (climate change), nationally (energy independence) and locally (mining) all involve science, we owe it to our children to teach real science – not pseudoscience.

I therefore ask readers to oppose this new ballot initiative. Supporting it isn’t necessarily a vote to protect Michigan water; that remains to be seen. But it is a vote against the integrity of science education. And that’s unacceptable because it damages us all.

Shawn M. Carlson
Adjunct Instructor
Northern Michigan University
Marquette

Eagle Rock Honored, Small Homeland Victories

Posted on by

August 18, 2009

Contact: Michelle Halley, NWF – 906-361-0520

NWF and partners pleased with Eagle Rock protection, will appeal remainder of decision

MARQUETTE, MICH – Administrative Law Judge Richard Patterson announced today that he will uphold permits issued to Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in 2007, with one critical exception that could nix the project or at the very least require a major overhaul of the mining plan. Nonetheless, the petitioners in the case will likely appeal the portions of the permits not struck down or modified. Attorneys say the contested case record provides a remarkably strong basis for appeal.

In his decision, Patterson recommended moving the mine’s portal, or entryway, from Eagle Rock, a sacred outcropping with spiritual importance to local Native American tribes. Patterson stated that Kennecott and the MDEQ “did not properly address the impact on the sacred rock outcrop known as Eagle Rock” and suggested moving the mine’s entry portal away from the rock.

Michelle Halley, attorney for the National Wildlife Federation, said “Kennecott has claimed for years that Eagle Rock is the only possible location for the mine’s portal. Without that option, this mine could be halted or, at the very least, require a complete overhaul of the mining plan. We are pleased that Eagle Rock will be protected, assuming MDEQ Director Steve Chester follows the judge’s recommendations on this issue.”

Patterson’s decision comes in the form of a recommendation to Chester. According to law, the parties in the case will have an opportunity to file exceptions to the judge’s recommendations by submitting a written document outlining those components with which they agree or disagree. Once Chester has received the exceptions, he will issue his final decision. Chester is not obligated to follow Patterson’s recommendations.

“While the protection of Eagle Rock is fantastic, it doesn’t address most of the technical deficiencies we outlined in the course of the contested case. Therefore we will almost certainly appeal the final agency decision should Director Chester adopt the judge’s recommendations on the remaining issues,” Halley stated.

The decision is the latest development in a series of legal challenges to prevent a foreign mining company with a deeply troubled environmental and human rights history from blasting a risky metallic sulfide mine beneath the Salmon Trout River in the central Upper Peninsula. Petitioners in the case are the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Huron Mountain Club, National Wildlife Federation and Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve.

In most areas, the judge’s recommendations failed to address issues that are important to protect workers and the environment. Halley, who said she is still reviewing all of the specifics of the decision, went on to say that NWF will address its concerns in written exceptions presented to the MDEQ and ultimately through appealing Chester’s final decision if it comes to that.

“We put on a solid case and created a factual record that will support appealing the remainder of the permit provisions that Judge Patterson left unaddressed. Many of those are too important to be overlooked and if they should remain unaddressed by Director Chester, we are prepared to appeal,” Halley stated.

“This ruling does not change our firm belief that the decision to permit this mine violates the law,” said Andy Buchsbaum, regional executive director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Regional Center. “We remain committed to protecting the people, economy and wildlife of Michigan from this risky type of mine that has proven deadly to rivers, streams and communities in other states.”

During oral arguments in the summer of 2008, NWF and its partners presented more than two dozen witnesses in a variety of technical disciplines. At the time, Halley remarked “the testimony in this case has done nothing but demonstrate Kennecott’s substandard job in preparing the application and the slipshod review by the DEQ. Testimony at the hearing from Kennecott, MDEQ and our experts proves time and time again that the proposed mine is unsafe for humans and the environment.”

Perhaps most stunning was the admission of MDEQ employee Joe Maki, leader of the mining review team that ultimately recommended approval of the mining permit. Asked under oath if he had applied mining law Part 632’s critical standard which states that the company must prove it will not pollute, impair, or destroy natural resources, Maki stated simply “I did not.” Asked if the mining review team had applied that standard, he said “I don’t believe so, no.”

Should MDEQ Director Chester act on Patterson’s recommendation regarding Eagle Rock, Kennecott will remain stymied and cannot conduct mining operations until a new mining plan is submitted and approved. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must still decide whether the company could obtain necessary federal permits.

Protect the Earth August 1st and 2nd

Posted on by

Protect the Earth Agenda
Saturday August 1st

Workshops, Dance and Music: Northern MI University, Whitman Building, Whitman Commons (Rooms 122 and 124), and West Science Building, Mead Auditorium, Marquette, MI, 12-4 pm and 6-8 pm (See Details Below)

Workshop Speakers Include, Saturday 12-4 pm, Whitman Building, Whitman  Commons,  Rooms 122 and 124:

Lorraine Rekmans: Serpent River First Nation (Uranium Mining)

Al Gedicks: University of LaCrosse WI, Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, Author and Filmmaker (WI Grassroots Multicultural Movements)

Laura Furtman: Author (Pollution at Kennecott’s Flambeau Mine, WI)

Stuart Kirsch: Anthropologist, University of MI (Indigenous Movements, Papua New Guinea)

Eric Hansen: Writer and Traveler (The Upper Peninsula, A Spiritual Homeland)

Lee Sprague: Sierra Club Clean Energy Campaign Manager and Former Ogemaw of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians

Mike Collins: Michigan Student Sustainability Coalition

Tim DeChristopher: University of Utah student, Oil and Gas Drilling

Music 12-4pm Throughout Workshops and 15 Minute Breaks, Whitman Building, Whitman Commons Room:

Victor McManemy: Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, Musician

Skip Jones: Wisconsin Folksinger, Educator and Social Activist

Music and Dance:Whitman Commons,  6-7:30pm

Megan Tucker: Anishinaabe Fancy Shawl and Hoop Dancer

Bobby “Bullet” St. Germaine: Ojibwe Folksinger

Movie demo: Mead Auditorium, New Science Facility NMU: 7:40-8:00pm

“Yoopers vs. Giant Mining Corporation”, NMU Mead Auditorium, Right Across from the Whitman Building, 7:30-8 pm

Sunday August 2nd

Walk to Eagle Rock (2 miles): Meet and Park at the Clowry Trail, Follow the Signs from County Rd. 510, 10:30 am
Bring your blueberry pails! (Rides will be provided back to your vehicles, and if you cannot walk the two miles please meet at Eagle Rock for lunch and speakers at 12pm) (Also, see directions below)

Lunch,Speakers,Ceremony: Eagle Rock, 12-2pm

Fred Ackley, Fran Van Zile, Jerry Burnett: Mole Lake Sokaogon Chippewa

Jessica Koski: Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (Sacred Sites)

Lee Sprague: Little River Band of Ottawa Indians

Al Gedicks: WI Resources Protection Council

Eric Hansen: Traveler, Author

Lorraine Rekmans: Serpent River

Bobby “Bullet” St. Germaine: Lac du Flambeau

Kenn Pitawanakwat: Manitoulin Island

Tom Williams: Lac Vieux Desert

Visit yellowdogsummer.wordpress.com for more information or call 906.942.7325

smallweb

Great Lakes United wins mining lawsuit

Posted on by

The Canadian Federal Court decision requires Environment Canada to make the mining industry annually report the toxic waste accumulating in tailings ponds and waste rock piles.

John Jackson

Great Lakes United

Great Lakes United and Mining Watch Canada, with the legal assistance of Ecojustice, have won a court case, forcing Environment Canada to require the mining industry to annually report the toxic substances put into tailings ponds and waste rock piles to a public inventory. This means that approximately 20 metal mining facilities located on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes basin will have to report their waste. This court decision will allow us to more completely understand threats to the Great Lakes basin as a result of mining activities.

Ecojustice launched the suit in November, 2007 on behalf of Great Lakes United and Mining Watch Canada. On April 23 2009 the Canadian Federal Court issued an order requiring the federal government to immediately begin publicly reporting mining pollution data from 2006 onward to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI).

The strongly worded decision described the government’s decision-making pace as “glacial” and chastised the government for turning a “blind eye” to the issue and dragging its feet for “more than 16 years”.

In response to the Canadian Minister of the Environment’s failure to require reporting, the Honourable Mr. Justice Russell concluded, “the result is that the people of Canada do not have a national inventory of releases of pollutants that will allow them to assess the state of the Canadian environment and take whatever measures they feel are appropriate to protect the environment and facilitate the protection of human health.”

In contrast, since 1998, the U.S. government has required mining companies to report all pollutants under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), the U.S. equivalent of the NPRI. In 2005, the 72 mines in the U.S. reporting to the TRI released more than 500 million kilograms of toxic substances to mine tailings and waste rock. This accounted for 27% of all U.S. pollutants reported. The addition of the Canadian data will give us a more complete picture of the mining threat in the Great Lakes.

Toxics leak through tailings ponds walls and evaporate into the air on an ongoing basis. As climate change threatens to bring more frequent and increasingly intense storms, the potential for tailings ponds’ walls to collapse increases. This means toxic tailings rushing out into the environment and into the lakes. Such devastating collapses of tailings ponds have already occurred in Europe and in the coal mining area of the U.S.

The decision also means that the public will have to be told about the devastating toxic discharges to the massive tailings ponds created by mining the tar sands in Alberta.   The product of tar sands development—one of the largest industrial undertakings in the world—is being touted as the source of oil for proposed expansions of oil refineries throughout the Great Lakes in locations such as Superior, Wisconsin, Gary, Indiana, Detroit, and Sarnia.

Now that we will have knowledge on the toxic contents of these tailings ponds and rock piles on both sides of the Great Lakes basin, we will be more capable of pressuring for action to protect the Great Lakes from these threats.

Environment Canada has stated that they will move quickly to implement the judge’s decision.

jjackson@glu.org

To read the entire legal judgement, click on http://www.glu.org/en/node/293.

Eagle Project on Hold

Posted on by

Rio Tinto released today a 38-page press release which discusses the company’s 2008 fiscal performance.   Buried in one paragraph on page 10 of the release, the company states that the “development of the Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company nickel and copper mine on the Yellow Dog Plains has been “deferred until market conditions recover.”

See http://www.riotinto.com/media/5157_17102.asp and click on the Press Release (pdf) at the bottom.

Jon Cherry of Kennecott Minerals hastily prepared a statement which reads,

“It is important to note that the Eagle project is one of many projects that add value to Rio Tinto. As market conditions continue to impact all industries, the Eagle team remains focused on realizing the inherent value of the project. We are continuing to work on our permits, litigation, and engineering design so that when the opportunity presents itself we will be poised to evaluate economic conditions and our next steps. The roughly 25 employees that are part of the Eagle project are integral to the ongoing activates in the U.P. These positions remain unchanged as we continue to focus on efforts and activities related to Eagle mine, Humboldt mill, and ongoing exploration activities.”

The fact is Kennecott finished their drilling activities for 2008 in December and laid off the young drill crew and security personnel indefinitely. Their plans for ‘full steam ahead’ have been slowed not only by the weather, but by Rio Tinto’s uncertaintly to proceed as planned.

The Eagle permit application has been criticized by experts in the field as being ‘worthless’ and should be thown out. The testimony given in the contested case against the Michigan DEQ and DNR proves that these agencies did not follow the law when evaluating and approving the mine permit. Thousands of citizens have signed petitions, written letters, and testified before the DEQ in efforts to bring attention to this project. Rio Tinto has not responded to the overwhelming public protest against Eagle project and remains isolated in London from these real issues surrounding Eagle.

The following are excerpts from John Pepin’s article published on the Mining Journal website, February 12, 2009 further explains Rio Tinto’s economic situation.

…[Though Rio Tinto reduced its net debt by $6.5 billion last year, posted underlying earnings of 38 percent above 2007 and had record 2008 production in iron ore, bauxite, U.S. coal, hard coking coal, alumina and borates, net earnings totaled $3.7 billion, half what they were the previous year, according to the release.

In December, Rio Tinto announced it would eliminate 14,000 jobs, cut capital spending from $9 billion to $4 billion for the coming year and expand the scope of assets targeted for divestment, including “significant assets” not previously up for sale.

At that time, Rio Tinto Chief Executive Tom Albanese said the measures were being taken in “response to the unprecedented rapidity and severity of the global economic downturn, which has caused sharp falls in commodity prices and a significantly weaker outlook.”

Albanese said Rio Tinto remained committed to an exploration and development strategy. But Albanese also said the company’s capital expenditure reductions would result in “impacts on projects across the board. Some projects will be canceled and others deferred until markets recover.”

Rio Tinto said then those projects would be announced today.]

[Some financial analysts speculated the $300 million Eagle Project could have made Rio Tinto’s canceled projects list because of faltering nickel prices and delays in starting the mine due to legal challenges over permits, which are continuing.

Even if legal challenges were soon resolved in the company’s favor, construction on the mine would take two years to complete before operations would begin.

This could mean the project deferment may not end up having much of an impact on the company’s plans for the Eagle Mine. But depending on how long it takes for the markets to rebound, the deferment might also pose big problems for Kennecott.

When asked what the company would do if it was legally able to begin construction in April, Cherry said, “We’d have to wait and see how things looked then. We’ll just have to see how it all fits together.”

Meanwhile, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has scheduled meetings and public hearings next Wednesday to take public input on Kennecott’s plans to reuse the Humboldt Mill.

The $80 million project would be expected to process ore from the Eagle Mine before it is shipped by rail to Canada for further processing. The facility is also eyed by Kennecott because there is room to expand processing there if additional Kennecott mining prospects in the area pan out.

Cherry said today’s project deferment announcement would not affect the sessions.

Kennecott officials said about 100 construction jobs and 50 full-time jobs in operation would be created at the Humboldt Mill. The Eagle Project, situated in northern Marquette County, would mine a six-acre underground deposit expected to yield 250 million to 300 million pounds of nickel and about 200 million pounds of copper.]