Survey]
significance and brief history of the collection. [ above- Venezuelan gold; left- diopside; below- silver]
The President has repeatedly eliminated funding for geothermal R&D in his budgets, but in an about-face the FY09 budget includes $30 million for geothermal, with an emphasis on enhanced/engineered geothermal systems, according to Dave Curtis with AAPG's DC office. Congress provided about $20 million in FY08 appropriations.I continue to address claims about the proposed merger of ADMMR with AZGS. Statements taken from messages we’ve received or seen are in bold. My responses follow each one.
The STATE GEOLOGIST is directed to charge fees for services and that includes accessing donated or loaned data currently at the ADMMR
AZGS does not charge anyone to access our repositories of data and samples. Under
4. Operate and maintain a central repository and a computerized database for reports, books, maps and other publications regarding the geology, mineral resources and associated technologies. Such repository and database shall be available for the use of the public and may be located at or connected with the
5. Operate and maintain a central repository for rock cores, well cuttings and related subsurface samples and all associated supplemental data consistent with the laws of this state requiring the deposit of such material and information. Such repository shall be available for the use of the public.
Under the laws for the Arizona Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, they are authorized to “Collect such fees as will cover the costs of such services as, but not limited to, reproduction of records or any portion thereof and copies of rules.” AZGS provides the administrative support to the Commission and can collect fees on their behalf.
There are no provisions in statute or in HB2584 for AZGS to charge fees to access the ADMMR files.
This legislation would allow the appointment of a “radical environmental” or “anti-mining” STATE GEOLOGIST to run the combined agency
A governor must appoint someone with the required technical background as State Geologist, and that person has to be confirmed by the State Senate, thus providing a check and balance.
However, there is no similar check and balance for the ADMMR Board of Governors. A governor can appoint anyone they want and those appointments last 5 years, often continuing in to the term of the subsequent governor, who has no way to remove them. There is no Senate review or confirmation of ADMMR Board members.
So, the ADMMR Board seems more vulnerable to politicization than does the appointment of the State Geologist.
The STATE GEOLOGIST will be appointed by the
No, AGIC will have absolutely no role in picking or approving the State Geologist. There is apparently some confusion over a second element of the merger bill. HB2584 includes a separate section that would move the AGIC from being administratively housed in the State Land Dept to AZGS. It has nothing to do with appointment of the State Geologist or management of the agency.
The ADMMR would be eliminated by HB2584
No – ADMMR would continue to exist and carry out its duties, only with additional support from the AZGS rather than by itself. A merger is not elimination.
Many of the messages we’re seeing state categorically or imply that the merger means the agency will disappear along with its staff, files, and facilities. That is not true.
The US Bureau of Mines was eliminated and shut down. ADMMR will continue to operate. There is a big difference.
This merger will send a message that
I disagree. Making the ADMMR functions stronger, and the entity more viable and stable, are messages that
ADMMR has a business culture, AZGS has a scientific culture and the two are incompatible
One of the driving forces behind the merger is to bring together AZGS’s entrepreneurial spirit and capabilities with ADMMR’s mission and assets.
The claim among some ADMMR supporters is that that agency talks with the business community while AZGS only talks to academic researchers. However, both are applied technology agencies with strong outreach and education missions. Just as with ADMMR, AZGS gets a continual stream of visitors and inquiries from the mining industry, although more typically focused on geology and exploration and less so on current activities. In addition, our library in
ADMMR has engineers on staff, AZGS has geologists on staff, and the two are incompatible
ADMMR has one engineer and one geologist in an engineering slot in staff positions. AZGS and ADMMR work together collaboratively without problem and, in fact, the integration of engineering and geology makes sense.
Some of the claims of incompatibility are coming from academics where I surmise there are barriers between geologic and engineering departments in their universities. Elsewhere, especially in industry, engineers and geologists have to work together to accomplish their tasks. We see team work among geologists, engineers and mineral economists as a valuable and productive arrangement.
The operative word here for me is “strong.” Independent-but-weak is a formula for failure. Since the merger was proposed, I’ve been hearing from colleagues in other western mining states, saying it’s about time for this to happen. They can’t understand why a major mining center like
The Resolution Copper mine project just east of the town of Superior, will start laying off people in March unless they have some assurances that the proposed land exchange will move forward, according to company president John Rickus. Rickus spoke to about 50 members of the Arizona Geological Society at the groups monthly dinner meeting in Tucson last night on the subject of "Sustainability in Mining." His remarks came near the end of his presentation, when he described the plans and challenges in developing what would become the largest copper producing mine in the U.S. [right: John Rickus]
Ongoing drought since 1996 is strongly affecting winter, spring, and fall precipitation. Winter moisture has been below average in 11 of the past 12 years, spring was below average in eight of the past 11 years, while fall was below normal in nine of the past 12 years. The precipitation decrease of the three seasons is 44 percent since 1996. In contrast, summer-monsoon related rainfall is unaffected by the ongoing drought. Although summer rainfall tends to be more abundant and dependable than the other seasons, cool season moisture is more important hydrologically. This means that aspects of Flagstaff's environment that require cool-season moisture, particularly the ponderosa pine forest, are increasingly stressed."
Under the President's budget, funding for the U.S. Geological Survey would be cut by $37 million from $1.06 billion in FY 2008 to $969 million in FY 2009. Funding for the Geologic discipline would be cut by $18 million from $239 million in FY 2008 to $221 million in FY 2009.
The President's budget would increase funding for the National Science Foundation by 14 percent to $6.854 billion in FY 2009. Funding for NSF's main research account would increase 16 percent to $5.594 billion in FY 2009. The large increase in funding for the National Science Foundation is consistent with the President's American Competitiveness Initiative, which would double the sum of the budgets of NSF, NIST core programs, and DOE Office of Science over ten years, and the America COMPETES Act, which was passed by Congress and signed by the President in 2007.
We should have more details this afternoon after briefings by the White House and Interior Dept.
Mohave County Board of Supervisors Chairman Pete Byers is quoted as saying, "We've got these animals coming in here eating up our entire county."
Coincidentally, AZGS just got notice of funding from the USGS StateMap program to start geologic mapping in the Kingman area in anticipation of growing demands for groundwater resources. AZGS geologists will start mapping the Dolan Springs quad in the Fall.We’ve seen more questions or claims about the proposed merger of AZGS and ADMMR (in bold) with my responses following each one:
ADMMR will fare as poorly as the
The U.S. Bureau of Mines was never merged with the USGS. It was eliminated in its entirety by Congress in 1995 as part of Newt Gingrinch’s “Contract with
In the debate over dissolving the Bureau, a handful of its staff and a couple of small programs were salvaged and transferred to the USGS. At the time, I worked with Gov. Mike Leavitt of Utah, and Bureau of Mines Director Rhea Graham to try to save the Bureau's research facility in Salt Lake City, but because Congress just wiped out their program, there was little we could do. Most Bureau offices just closed down.
The merger of ADMMR and AZGS is totally different. The goal of the merger is to strengthen the department’s capabilities, not eliminate them. All of ADMMR’s programs and missions will continue as before. ADMMR's Phoenix office will continue to operate as it does today. Resources will continue to keep the mission functioning, although savings are expected as a result of combining operations.
Since the AZGS left the
The Bureau of Mineral Technology is a
AZGS was one of two sections in the former UA Bureau of Geology & Mineral Technology, along with a Branch of Mineral Technology, up until the Survey was split out and made an independent state agency in 1988. The Branch of Mineral Technology remained in the University as the remaining program of the revamped Bureau of Mineral Technology. It continued to exist in the University at least until 2005.
Anyone with concerns about the BMT performance should contact the
The
I can’t speak for university priorities or budgeting, but AZGS views ADMMR as forming a flagship program in mining and mineral resources. We believe we can leverage the small amount of state money that the department gets now and allow it to prosper and grow.
Frankly, the AZGS was moved out of the University in 1988 because of competing priorities with support of state service functions such as those provided by the AZGS. This has been a common trend across the country with a number of state geological surveys moving from university to state agency operations.
Now, as an independent agency head, I go directly to the governor's budget office and work directly with the Legislature's budget staff. The same is true for ADMMR.We are investing heavily in the
AZGS opened our first-ever branch office in
The booth isn't much different from the others in the tent city. Mammoth tusks and teeth on folding tables. What is surprising is the business cards of the two men who are still unpacking boxes. They are from the Museum of Natural History in Novosibirsk, Russia. They are selling Siberian fossils. 
The Tucson Gem, Mineral, and Fossil Showcase opened today with nearly 50 separate shows across the city. The snapshots here are mostly from the Arizona Mineral and Fossil Show, which is spread across four venues.
Reauthorization of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 was introduced this week by Congressmen Jim Costa (D-CA) and Nick Rahall (D-WV) of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee as H.R.5171. Arizona has received $2.634 million, the 4th largest amount of any state, since the program began.
There wasn't much local press coverage of last week's U.S. Senate hearing on the hardrock mining bill, so here's a summary prepared by the AGI Government Affairs Program:
Last year the House passed a hardrock mining law reform bill (H.R. 2262) that would impose 8 percent royalties on the gross returns on minerals from new claims and a 4 percent royalty on existing claims with part of these proceeds marked for cleanup of thousands of abandoned mines across the country. The measure would also grant federal and state authorities more control over where hardrock mining can be conducted.
On January 24, 2008 the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on hardrock mining reform and asked a bevy of diverse witnesses about the pros and cons of the House bill and what the Senate Committee should consider in any Senate legislation. William Cobb of the National Mining Association called the added controls on mining an undue regulatory burden. Mike Dombeck of Trout Unlimited and a former head of both the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management indicated that land managers have little say over mining sites compared to oil and natural gas developments and this lack of oversight needs to be fixed. James Otto an independent consultant favored a gross royalty over a net-proceeds royalty but noted that an 8 percent royalty would be the highest in the world.
Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) called for the Senate to consider drafting a completely new bill versus compromising on the House bill. Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) thought that more analysis of the royalty structure was needed before deciding on any numbers.
Discussions about hardrock mining reform are likely to continue in both chambers, however, it is unclear whether the Senate will draft their own bill or consider revisions to the House bill. Input from stakeholders to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee would probably be of value throughout the year even if legislation is not finalized.
