Sunday, September 30, 2007

Old mines to re-open

The Phoenix Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0923biz-miami0923.html) reported last week that Freeport McMoran is considering re-opening inactive mines in Arizona and Colorado because copper and molybdenum are near all-time high prices (a story apparently not picked up by the news media here in southern Arizona).

Freeport is reported as looking at reopening or expanding Globe/Miami, Bisbee, Clifton/Morenci and Leadville, Colo. They have been drilling at the Lavender Pit in Bisbee which has been closed since 1974 [right].

Insiders tell me not to believe everything in the article but that the gist of it is correct. I asked if the Ajo mine was on the list to possibly reopen and the laughing response was that it could probably be purchased for a pretty low price. (It's currently a candidate for an expensive reclamation and thus a liability on the books.)

To meet the demand, Freeport is running 7 days on, 7 days off, for workers driving or being bussed from cities around Arizona. The latest word is that the labor shortage is so severe that they will be flying in workers from Las Vegas and Dallas for one week shifts at Morenci.

On another note, Paul Lindberg enthused about the mineral resources still in the ground at the Jerome mine. During his talk at the Ores and Orogenesis talk in Oro Valley on Friday, he told how there were few assays or other analyses during the mine's early exploration and much of the potential was not determined. He estimated only 20% of the ore body has been exposed or excavated. The mine was a major producer of copper, zinc, lead, silver, and gold from 1883 to 1953.

AGS symposium - "best of the past decade"

The technical program for the AZ Geological Society's "Ores and Orogenesis" symposium wrapped up Saturday evening with a 'beer bash' where participants uniformly described it as the best scientific event many had attended in the past decade.

That was evidenced by almost everyone packing technical talks until 5 pm on a Saturday.

Most speakers are expected to contribute a written version of their talks to a proceedings volume due out next year.

[right: crowds during coffee break and in the exhibits area]

[below: Paul Lindberg displays sample of a Proterozoic black smoker following his talk on the massive sulfide deposit at Jerome, AZ]



Thursday, September 27, 2007

A few pictures from Ores & Orogenesis symposium





Registration is over 850, with attendees from 27 countries. The porphyry copper session on Wednesday afternoon was standing room only.

Bill Dickinson and colleagues at the Icebreaker.


Geologist and murder-mystery author Susan Miller signs books at the AZGS booth.


Audience glued to animated porphyry copper model.

AGS president Ann Pattison staffing the booth.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

800+ Geologists at Ores and Orogenesis Conference

Registration topped 800 for the Arizona Geological Society's

Ores & Orogenesis

Circum-Pacific Tectonics, Geologic Evolution, and Ore Deposits

that kicks off tonight at Tucson's El Conquistador Resort. Some field trips started more than a week ago in Japan, the Yukon, and Mexico. More trips are scheduled after the technical program ends on Saturday, Sept 29. Details are at http://www.agssymposium.org/

The symposium is in honor of William (Bill) Dickinson, professor of geology at University of Arizona and tectonicist extraordinaire.

Attendees are coming from around the world, including many mineral explorationists and academics. I plan on blogging about the symposium, geologic talks, and mining news in the coming days.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Water, economic impacts from Rosemont copper mine

Two new reports are out on the proposed Rosemont copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains, south of Tucson.

According to a story in the Green Valley News, the Pima County Flood Control District commissioned a report by hydrologist Tom Myers that concluded that depending on depth to pre-mine water levels, the pit would lower the regional water table by as much as 1,500 feet, and would intercept about 650 acre feet per year of flow to Davidson Canyon. A number of uncertainties in estimating ground water impacts were also outlined.

Last week, the AZGS' State Mapping Advisory Committee made detailed geologic mapping of the Rosemont area the top priority for Survey mapping for the state-federal Statemap cooperative program. The committee believes the map can be used to provide more realistic geologic controls on aquifer modeling in the area among other uses.

A second report was released by the Marana-based Western Economic Analysis Center. The Rosemont project is projected to create 500 jobs averaging $20-25 per hour, and put $256 million annually into the Pima County economy for the next 19 years.

Overall, the mine would produce 2,950 jobs and $488 million annually in Arizona, and $2.3 billion to the national economy, with $43 billion directly and indirectly.

Pima County officials are reported as saying the loss in tourism and diminishing of the areas appeal would be greater than those benefits.

[right: Rosemont mine proposed plan map, courtesy Augusta Resources]

Friday, September 14, 2007

Ignore the cheap shot, there are funds to close up old mines

Last week, Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts became an advocate for more funding for closing abandoned mines in Arizona. Her solution? Stop funding scientific research projects such as “Enhancing Teaching Effectiveness in Undergraduate Geology Education Through the Use of Pen-Tablet Computers” and “A Resource for Assembling the Timescale of Life.”Science has long been an easy target for public figures who are looking to grandstand. Most people won’t understand what the project is about, let alone what the relevance to society may be. Generally, scientists are ineffective public communicators, so there is little risk in going after us.

We certainly could divert all of the state’s scientific research funding of $35 million to closing abandoned mines. No doubt there are many other state programs that someone would be happy to shut down as well. But there may be more responsible and effective solutions for fixing the abandoned mine problem.

The U.S. General Accounting Office in 1996 reported (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/rc96030.pdf) that there is no comprehensive inventory of abandoned mines on federal lands, nor private and state lands. They reference a 1991 study that estimated a cost of $11 billion to reclaim existing abandoned mine lands but didn’t lay out the details of how they came to that figure.

Right now, over $1.8 billion sits in the federal government’s Abandoned Mine Lands fund in the Office of Surface Mining (as reported in 7-06, the latest figure posted). Unfortunately, the money is dedicated to reclaiming coal mines, not hard rock mining sites such as predominate in Arizona. Since 1977, the U.S. has collected over $7.4 billion from coal company production, and spent $5. 4 billion, leaving 24% of the money socked away in the treasury. The feds are using the funds as an accounting technique to help balance the budget, so they are reluctant to spend the money on the purpose it was collected.

Another problem is that the coal-producing states fight to make sure the monies are used only for reclaiming abandoned coal properties or go to coal-producing states, and not to hard rock mines or states. Thus, we have a situation like Wyoming that produces a large part of the nation’s coal, getting a comparable return of the abandoned mine fees. However, all the abandoned mines in that state have been reclaimed, leaving the cash flow to be used for such things as new buildings on the University of Wyoming campus and a variety of other projects that can be justified as mining-related.

[above right: OSM map of coal mines eligible for Abandoned Mine Lands funds. Hard rock mines such as are common in Arizona are not eligible]

Opening up the federal abandoned mine lands fund to fixing all types of mines is an obvious solution. However, such an effort will create a political firestorm, as it has when it's been suggested in the past. Coal companies can raise a valid point as to why they should be taxed to pay for problems in another industry. But to the parents of a child that died from falling into an open mine shaft, does it make a difference whether the mine produced coal or gold?


From the OSM website:

The Surface Mining Law provides for the restoration of lands mined and abandoned or left inadequately restored before August 3, 1977. Production fees of 35 cents per ton of surface mined coal, 15 cents per ton of coal mined underground and 10 cents per ton of lignite are collected from coal producers at all active coal mining operations. The fees are deposited in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, which is used to pay the reclamation costs of abandoned mine land projects. The fund consists of fees, contributions, late payment interest, penalties, administrative charges, and interest earned on investment of the fund's principal. From January 30, 1978, when the first fees were paid, through September 30, 2005, the fund has collected $7,445,240,695.16 and fund appropriations totaled $ 5,748,548,370.03

Monday, September 03, 2007

100,000 abandoned mines in Arizona?


The State Mine Inspector's office has inventoried over 10,000 abandoned mines in Arizona since 1992 but estimates there may be as many as 100,000 across the state (http://www.asmi.state.az.us/faq.asp).

About 13% of the known mines are considered a significant public safety hazard. Extrapolating, that could mean as many as 13,000 dangerous shafts or pits, most of them unmapped or unknown. Like the one near Chloride where two young girls on ATVs fell in over the weekend, killing one of them.

[right - courtesy State Mine Inspector]

Arizona is lucky if it fences or seals off a dozen abandoned mines a year. The abandoned mine program is small and costs are high to block off the most dangerous locations.

State Mine Inspector Joe Hart, a former state senator, armtwisted the Arizona Legislature into adding $50,000 to his agency's budget this year for abandoned mines. Phelps-Dodge, now Freeport McMoran, contributed a matching $50,000.

Friday, August 31, 2007

Can we find consensus on energy?

I attended a community forum last night in Tucson hosted by Shell Oil Co. president John Hofmeister to discuss energy in America. Hofmeister, aided by a group of senior Shell managers, asked three formal questions then threw it open for discussion. Tucson was stop 41 on a planned 50 city tour over 18 months. They’ve been to Phoenix earlier and spent yesterday afternoon at UA meeting with researchers. [right- John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil]

The answers they got last night did not always respond to the questions they raised. Hofmeister at one point paraphrased Donald Rumsfeld, by saying that we operate the energy system we have, not the one we wish we had.

And that was the dichotomy I saw at the forum. Shell asked where we envisioned our energy mix would be in 10 years. People responded about where it should be (lots of renewables, strong opposition by a couple of vocal participants that it NOT include nuclear).

When Shell asked what they could do to increase domestic oil (and gas) production, some people were vociferous that oil production has peaked, we won’t find enough new production to meet growing demands, so we have to restructure the entire U.S. energy system away from fossil fuels. Others raised concerns about global warming, CO2, and political stability.

That was the underlying challenge – do we maintain and improve the current system and trillion dollar investment in energy infrastructure or throw it out to build an entirely new one in the next 10- 40 years? Those concerned about CO2 and environmental issues want the latter, but how realistic is that? America has not reached any kind of tipping point to fundamentally restructure our energy system.

Hofmeister ran through their numbers on what it would take to meet the IPCC’s 80% reduction of CO2 below 1990 levels by 2050: conversion of most coal power plants to gasification, all new plants using gasification, conversion of the entire U.S. automobile and truck population to E85 or hydrogen/electric, and a number of other huge changes. To make that kind of radical change will require a crash program and the costs will be staggering. It wasn’t stated explicitly but there is no evidence that the nation is even seriously considering such an undertaking.

There was consensus last night in Tucson that energy is a critical and complex issue, but I heard no consensus on solutions. I doubt there was consensus in most of the other 40 cities visited. Shell is posting the results of these town hall meetings at www.energysecurity.shell.com.

Monday, August 27, 2007

Catching up on the summer news

Kids are back in school, we're making plans for Labor Day. Between vacation and wrapping up the fiscal year, it's the Dog Days of August already and I didn't get to blog about so many things that happened this summer. So, here are a few quick observations -

The Weather Service tossed out the idea of dropping "monsoon" for the terminally bureaucratic moniker of "severe thunderstorm season." Mercifully, that lasted just long enough for everyone to shake their heads in bemusement or make a snide comment about it.

But there does seem to reason to instead call it the "earth fissure season." The heavy downpours opened up a fissure in the same neighborhood in Queen Creek south of Phoenix that got hit almost exactly two years earlier. Tragically, the fissure went through a corral and a horse fell in, was trapped by the mud in it and died from the stress and exertion despite heroic rescue efforts.
Not too far away, county workers laid steel plates across San Tan Highway where it crossed a fissure, to prevent the road from collapsing. Fissures opened up across properties, or grew by hundreds of feet in very short times. Reports of fissure activity are still coming in.

On another hot topic, the Arizona Daily Star columnist Ernesto Portillo Jr, said maybe it's time to say goodbye to mining in Arizona. He wrote, "Water is too precious to throw into a mine," because mines pollute and damage the environment and they compete for water that could be used for cities and agriculture. Regardless of your view of mining, this stance belies a couple of questions. When does water become too precious to throw at growing crops in the desert? And how much pollution and environmental impacts are we going to see from adding 10 million more people to Arizona in the next 25 years with their cars, RVs, demands for electricity, and land cleared for 4 million new houses? The question isn't mining or water; it's more likely to be unlimited growth or water.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

20,000+ earth fissure maps downloaded



We've passed a milestone with 20,755 copies of the AZGS' Earth Fissure Planning Maps downloaded since they were released publicly on June 4. Downloads, by county are:

Maricopa County 10,016

Pinal County 7,109

Cochise County 1,717

Pima County 1,913

OFR-07-01 Program Report 4,897

[above - Maricopa Co. Earth Fissure Planning Map]

The Planning Maps show all the known or reported earth fissures in Arizona, and identify 24 study areas that are being systematically mapped at high resolution by AZGS. Maps can be viewed and downloaded at http://www.azgs.az.gov/earth%20fissure%20planning%20maps.html


Sunday, August 05, 2007

ASU puts original Apollo flight films online


Arizona State University has teamed with NASA's Johnson Space Center and the Lunar & Planetary Institute to scan the high-resolution original Apollo flight films. The first examples are available to browse or download at: http://apollo.sese.asu.edu.

There is a lot more at the site, including more than 6,000 lunar petrographic slides, and pictures of numerous extraterrestrial bodies.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Arizona surveyors consider restricting use of GPS


Should only licensed surveyors and engineers be legally allowed to use high-precision GPS instruments to make maps in Arizona?

The Arizona Professional Land Surveyors (APLS) are circulating a 'white paper' entitled "Geospatial Debate" (http://sco.az.gov/WhitePaper_v6.pdf) that questions who should be allowed to use sub-meter accuracy GPS units to map natural and man-made features. It was prepared in response to a complaint to the Arizona State Board of Technical Registration (SBTR) by a licensed surveyor protesting non-surveyors using such units. [above: AZGS geologists locating earth fissures in Maricopa County, using a sub-meter resolution GPS unit. Will surveyors have to oversee geologists mapping natural hazards like these?]

It falls on the heels of a recently dismissed federal lawsuit at the national level to restrict map making to surveyors and engineers (see my blogs on June 15 and May 14). In the wake of that contentious battle, earth scientists are wary.

The paper talks about the need for "... surveyors or engineers to take an aggressive and proactive stance against non registrants using this equipment [ ie, sub-meter GPS]..."

The paper does state that, "The GO Committee believes the best approach is to focus on the use of geospatial data and not on the licensing, registration or certification of geospatial professionals as a general rule. The Committee believes that whether geospatial data are used as an “authoritative” location of a boundary or geographic feature is the most relevant aspect of whether geospatial data must be developed by a registered professional."

But the options laid out for the APLS members to consider are to "do nothing,"
adopt model national restrictions, or adopt rules like those in Oregon that also include the national restrictions.

The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) model guidelines define land surveying as “… the making of geometric measurements and gathering related information pertaining to the physical or legal features of the earth, improvements on the earth, the space above, on, or below the earth… providing, utilizing, or developing the same into survey products such as graphics, data, maps, plans, reports, descriptions, or projects" [emphasis added].

Clearly this crosses over to the roles of geologists and others. APLS is preparing to develop recommendations to take to the SBTR. Geologists need to get engaged in this debate.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Hollbrook's concrete dinosaurs up for sale


Life-sized concrete dinosaurs from the Dinosaur Park roadside attraction near Petrified Forest National Park are up for sale, according to a report in the Arizona Republic. The land has been sold for housing, retail and commercial buildings, but the dozen dinosaurs are not part of the deal. Some of them have sold to unnamed parties. [right: Sam Lowe/Arizona Republic]

But you better hurry if you want to create your own Jurassic Park - the Holbrook Chamber of Commerce and local businesses are reportedly looking to snap up the remaining dinos.

More on the Dinosaur Park at
http://www.azcentral.com/travel/arizona/features/articles/archive/holbrook.html

Monday, July 09, 2007

Is the San Pedro River "toast"?


The former district chief of the USGS Water Resources Division in Arizona says it is already too late to save the flows of the San Pedro River.

In an op-ed piece in todays Arizona Daily Star (http://www.azstarnet.com/opinion/190715), Robert MacNish wrote that "Even if all groundwater pumping in the basin is stopped immediately, the effects of the historic pumping will continue to expand from the pumping centers, and the river will dry up, flowing only during storms."

[right: San Pedro River 2007, Joe Cook/AZGS]

He also said that if pumping were never to resume, "recovery could take more than a century." He called for "agressive, pro-active measures" to be taken immediately or the river is "toast." And concluded that "given the historic responses of the folks in the basin to repeated warnings of the rivers potential demise, it is too late."

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Retiring Park Service geology leader made a difference


Dave Shaver retired from the National Park Service last week. In the mid-1990s, Dave played a leadership role in the formation of the NPS' Geologic Resources Division. While Dave was not trained as a geologist, he contributed more to geologic understanding and management of our parks than anyone I can think of.

The Park Service needs to recognize the central role of geology in the nations parks, and fill Dave's position with someone who will be be either de facto or explicitly, the Chief Geologist of the NPS, with input at the most senior level of the organization.

[right: Grand Canyon, showing the entire Paleozoic stratigraphic section, courtesy USGS & AGI Image Bank]

Many of our most spectacular parks were initially set aside for their geologic qualities, but have no geologist on staff and geology is virtually absent from many park interpretive materials and park plannning. The numbers are a bit squishy, but there are only about 45 geologists in any positions in the NPS (including collecting entrance fees or repairing trails), while there are 900 biologists. No surprise then that the biological features of our parks tend to be emphasized over the geologic ones. In addition, Park managers are realizing the need for better identification of geologic hazards that threaten the parks and park visitors. The increased need for groundwater and places to dispose of waste also call for more geologic expertise in the Park system.

The GRD is making huge strides in preparing geologic evaluations of hundreds of park units across the country. Under Dave's leadership, the GRD partnered with the state geological surveys to systematically review the geologic resources and needs in each park in a state. I was fortunate to be invited to the first ever meeting of geologists from across the NPS a dozen years ago, along with Vicki Cowart, then the state geologist of Colorado. The partnership between state surveys and the NPS was developed at that meeting and continues to spread. That will be part of Dave's legacy.

Dave also took a risky stance when he challenged the Park Service hierarchy decision to promote a creationist book in the Grand Canyon visitor center that denies natural science and opposes the beliefs of many mainstream religions. The book controversy has attracted widespread attention and criticism. Dave put his persuasive arguments against the U.S. government getting into the position of promoting one religious viewpoint over others, in a letter to NPS management, but to no avail.

I hope whoever takes Dave's place in the Park Service will have the strength to continue to fight for the inclusion of good science in the management, interpretation, and preservation of these world-class geologic treasures.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Sustainable mining

Sustainable mining is NOT about the sustainability of mining itself, a specific mine or a resource. Mining per se is not sustainable. That explanation came from Becky Morris of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association during a presentation to the recent annual convention of the Arizona Rock Products Association (ARPA).

Sustainable mining is about addressing contributions of mining to meet societal needs. She described it as more of a "life cycle approach" to mining.

She was followed by Jamie Gaboriau with Aggregate Industries in Colorado. AI has adopted a sustainable mining approach that includes a comprehensive report on all their activities to ensure that the entire operation is transparent, including energy usage, spills, production information and so on. One result is that they are finding that things that used to be considered waste can be turned into profits. For example, reclaimed mined lands are converted to wetlands that fetch $60,000 an acre.

Giffords "not opposed to mining" but criticizes Rosemont proposal


U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords told the Arizona Geological Society monthly dinner meeting last night that she is not opposed to mining in southern Arizona but Augusta Resources has not done an adequate job in engaging the community over its proposed Rosemont copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains, about 20 miles south of Tucson. She said that each proposal has to be looked at individually but she held open the possibility of withdrawal of federal lands for the Rosemont mine. She sounded uncertain as to whether other types of development, such as housing tracts, could be built if the mine was prohibited.

She started her talk with updates on the Ft Huachuca - San Pedro River issues and her initiatives to promote solar energy development. She said the Fort contributes $2 billion to the economy but is at risk because of threats to water resources in the San Pedro basin. But Giffords spent most of the evening talking about and answering questions on mining, especially the Rosemont mine. Giffords contrasted Augusta's efforts with those of the Resolution copper mine, which she said had developed strong community and even environmental support.

She said the majority of her constituents oppose the Rosemont mine and she complained that the profits from the mine would leave the U.S., noting that Augusta is a Canadian company. She also raised conerns about water resources needed for the mine.

A lot of geologists from mining and geotechnical companies were in the audience. Many were skeptical or challenged her statements. One noted that the Resolution mine, which Giffords appeared to support, is also foreign owned (Australian and British companies) and asked why she wasn't concerned about their profits leaving Arizona.

Another pointed out that Giffords had also talked about 10 million new residents coming to Arizona in the next 40 years - where, he asked, are they going to find the mineral resources to provide them the necessities of life unless we import them at increased risk to our national security? Someone piped up that to build all the solar panels Giffords wants, they will have to set up the manufacturing plants "at the gates of the copper mines" to make sure they can get the minerals needed.

A representative of the steelworkers union told Giffords that mining jobs are the highest paying blue collar jobs in the region and even a small number of them can have a big impact on communities. He reminded her that he had campaigned hard for her election to Congress.

Someone else pointedly argued that if Augusta Resources is meeting all the state and federal requirements for responsible mining, should they be turned down simply because there's a "mob that wants to lynch them." That comment drew strong positive response from many in the audience.

Giffords committed to a number of questioners that she would continue the dialogue with them on these issues and the entire 1872 Mining Law reconsideration.

Monday, July 02, 2007

What didn't pass in the Arizona legislature


Governor Napolitano's proposals to restore the AZGS' Mineral Resources Program and start a Natural Hazards Mitigation Program to assist local governments both went down to failure in the just completed Arizona Legislature session. The proposals were cut out early in the appropriations process and we couldn't find any legislative champions willing to try to get them back on the table for discussion.

The Legislature also defeated a proposed referendum to remove the State Mine Inspector from the list of elective offices. Arizona has the only elected mine inspector in the nation (and probably in the world).

Friday, June 29, 2007

Comments invited on seismic hazard maps


Ken Fergason, president of the Phoenix chapter of AEG forwarded this message from the USGS:

The USGS has prepared updated draft versions of the national seismic hazard model and maps, intended only for public review and comment during June and July 2007, not for use.


The maps and documentation are available at:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps. Follow the link for "2007 NSHMP Draft Documentation". Most of you will only be interested in the "(Preliminary) Documentation" and "(Preliminary) Maps". Interactive, zoomable GIS versions of the maps are available via the "Interactive Maps" button in the blue zone to the left of the "Documentation" and "Maps" buttons; you can zoom in on any location in the 48 states. Other links access additional maps, arrays of ground motions for various PEs, input data, and the hazard software. Data content at some these links is still being updated, but the documentation and hazard values should be stable during the review period. [above right - peak ground acceleration, with 2% chance of occurring in 50 years. USGS draft map]

Please review the maps and documentation and send your comments and concerns to NSHM07@usgs.gov.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Geothermal energy part of new state mandate

Arizona has a new Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) of 15% which means the state's regulated utilities have to get 15% of their electric generation from renewable energy resources. This is up from the old requirement of 1.1%. Another change is that geothermal energy is included now in the mix.

We should expect Arizona utilities to explore for high temperature geothermal resources that might support electric generation.

We might also expect them to promote use of moderate and low temperature resources for space heating, green houses, etc. This use of distributed energy production, by consumers, can count towards the utilities 15% obligation.

The Arizona Corporation Commission approved the larger RPS earlier this year, but implementation was waiting for an opinion by Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard. That approval came last week.