AP is reporting that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will announce the closure of 1 million acres of federal lands to mining claims in northern Arizona because of their proximity to the boundaries of Grand Canyon National Park. The objective is to undertake a 2-year study on whether the areas should be permanently closed to mining. It does not affect existing claims.
I have to presume this refers only to BLM lands, since National Forests are managed by the Dept. of Agriculture. [right, all areas requested to be withdrawn by mining opponents]
The objective is to obstruct human progress, as is normal by environmental activists. It is probably also to preclude uranium mining, because, heaven forbid, somebody might build reactors instead of windmills.
ReplyDeleteSChaser,
ReplyDeleteHow is it you define "human progress" by the contamination of water sources? Do you think it's possible said mining could and should be accomplished elsewhere, as to not jeopardize this national treasure?
Thanks to environmental activists, we have pristine areas and the mandate to rethink and research options that serve both humanity and the planet we need to sustain.
All mining has to be conducted where economically mineable minerals are, not just somewhere else. That's not to say that mining has to be conducted everywhere there are economic minerals - it isn't. So many times I've been asked, well why don't you/they just put the mine over there? Over there often doesn't have anything to mine.
ReplyDeleteSorry, pet peeve.
It is implied that the mining would occur "somewhere else" where it is economically mineable, not just a random point on a map. Are you trying to assert that the location above relatively near the Grand Canyon is the only location where we can economically mine uranium? Please.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, there are degrees of profitability involved. The greater the profitability, the larger the political contributions and more intense the public campaign. This should not blur the truth. Sorry, just my pet peeve.