The Mohawk Council of Kanesatake demands full Environmental Assessment on proposed mining operation

KANESATAKE, Quebec City, Sept. 24 /CNW Telbec/ - The Kanesatake Mohawk Council is demanding a full Environmental Assessment be conducted immediately by the Federal Government in regard to a niobium mine planned for the area. Federal involvement is essential due to the safety concerns, Aboriginal rights and fiduciary responsibility issues.

Niocan, Inc. seeks to build and operate a mine on lands which are within the old Seigneury of the Lake of Two Mountains over which the Mohawks have aboriginal and treaty rights. The land upon which the old Saint Laurence Columbium Mine rests is situated within the ongoing Kanesatake land claim.

Some compounds of niobium are known to be toxic. As well, isotopes of radium and polonium exist in high concentrations in the ore body that Niocan proposes to mine. These and other radioactive materials (including Radium 226, Lead 210 and Thorium 230) will be left behind in the significant volumes of radioactive wastes left over from the mining operations in slag and tailings. There are 36 different radioactive by-products in existence.

On February 14, 2002 the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake passed a resolution to defend their traditional territory from the operation of a niobium mine that would affect their waters and lands. The mining project would impact over 25 square kilometres of land in a vibrant agricultural area, which markets directly from the farms to the population of Montreal. This area includes the traditional territory of the Mohawks of Kanesatake.

The Niocan project would undoubtedly have a powerful effect on the area's natural water systems and could destroy the agricultural capability of the surrounding areas.

"We must guard and protect this land for our future generations, both environmentally and health wise, and we remain steadfast in the preservation of our territory," stated Grand Chief Sohenrise Paul Nicholas. "Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl has stated that access to clean drinking water and wastewater systems for First Nations people is a priority of his government. Canada must hold true to its word and proceed with an independent and unbiased assessment."

For further information: Grand Chief Sohenrise Paul Nicholas, (450) 479-8373

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2009/24/c8280.html

EPA writing rules for hardrock mine cleanups

Oh, my goodness! The EPA is considering making the hard-rock mining companies clean up after themselves so that you and I don't have to!

Associated Press - July 13, 2009 2:14 PM ET

DENVER (AP) - The Environmental Protection Agency is developing a rule to guarantee hardrock mining companies will pay for environmental cleanup at their operations.

The agency said Monday it is working on the details and expects to file a proposed rule by spring 2011.

A federal judge in February ordered the EPA to close loopholes that allow companies to get out of paying for costly cleanups by declaring bankruptcy

he EPA said requirements will ensure hardrock miners will finance the cleanup but did not release more specifics.

Hardrock mining companies produce such metals as copper, gold, iron, lead and uranium as well as nonmetallic, non-fuel materials.

http://www.kjct8.com/Global/story.asp?S=10717493

South Dakota Uranium Mine Request Deficient

By Carson Walker
Sioux Falls, South Dakota (AP) 6-09

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has told the Canadian developer of a planned uranium mine in southwest South Dakota that it must fix several deficiencies in its application or the proposal will be rejected.

Powertech Uranium Corp. is operating under a state permit to drill exploratory holes and hopes to start mining in 2011 near Edgemont if it can get all the required federal and state permits.

NRC spokesman David McIntyre said the agency met with the company. He said Powertech indicated that within a week, it will indicate if it plans to withdraw the application, fix the problems and resubmit it or wait for the NRC to reject the current request.

It’s not a fatal blow, but it could delay the project that seeks to take advantage of higher uranium prices, he said.

“This is by no means the NRC saying, ‘You can never recover uranium at this site.’ This is us saying, ‘You haven’t given us enough information,”’ McIntyre said.

Powertech has a corporate office in Vancouver, British Columbia, and operations Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico, as well as the Dewey Burdock project in South Dakota.

The company wants to inject chemically treated water into holes to dissolve the uranium, then pump out the solution and collect the uranium for processing. Company representatives said the so-called in situ leach-mining process is safe and does not cause contamination.

But some environmental and American Indian groups oppose the project for fear it would harm underground aquifers and disturb archaeological sites. The land is about 60 miles from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and lies on the southern edge of the Black Hills, which Indians consider sacred.

McIntyre said two of the four primary deficiencies deal with water. Powertech must show more clearly that the rock formations in the area would protect groundwater from chemical contamination through the drilling process or seismic faults, he said.

“Anything that could affect the flow of the water or how the drilling could affect the flow of the water,” McIntyre said. “The application doesn’t address it fully.”

The company also must give more specifics on how it would dispose of waste at the mining site and how the mine would operate, he said.

Mark Hollenbeck, project manager of the Dewey Burdock project, said the company’s management is studying the NRC’s request for more information and plans to release the company’s decision on how to proceed early next week.

“But we don’t anticipate any significant delay in the process,” he said.

http://indiancountrynews.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6772&Itemid=116

VCN is coming to a town near you ...

attend a workshop to learn how to protect Virginia's environment.

Every summer, Virginia Conservation Network and our partners at the Virginia League of Conservation Voters Education Fund hit the road. We host regional workshops on key environmental issues and discuss ways that concerned Virginians can make a difference as citizen lobbyists, activists, and educators.

In 2009 our theme is “Conservation in Changing Times.” Join us to learn more about what political changes in D.C. mean for the environment—and what statewide elections will mean for conservation in Virginia. We’ll look at major issues like climate change and water quality, as well as locally significant issues ranging from mining to high-speed rail.

Come have dinner (on us), meet environmental experts, and learn how the Legislative Contact Teams program is turning concerned Virginians into conservation leaders.

Please be sure to invite your volunteers to attend this event and let us know if you wish to have any local issues covered at the workshop nearest you.

To view the agenda and register, click a link below:

• June 16, 2009 Richmond (YMCA Downtown)
  Special Topic: Smart Growth (Partner: Partnership for Smarter Growth)
  
  
  
  
• June 18, 2009 Charlottesville (Jefferson Madison Regional Library)
  Special Topic: Community Based Energy Programs (Partner: Bill Dunnington)
  
  
  
• June 22, 2009 Arlington (Arlington Central Library)
  Special Topic: Mountain Top Removal and the proposed Surry Coal Fired Power Plant (Partner: Appalachian Voices)
  
  
  
• June 23, 2009 Warrenton (Warrenton Visitors Center)
  Special Topic: Proposed Transmission Lines (Partner: Piedmont Environmental Council)
  
  
  
• July 8, 2009 Martinsville (Henry County Admin. Building)
  Special Topic: Uranium Mining and Water Quality (Partner: Dan River Basin Association)
  
  
  
• July 13, 2009 Norfolk (Ernie Morgan Center)
  Special Topic: Offshore Wind Energy (Partner: Sierra Club)

I hope you will join us.

Nathan Lott
VCN Executive Director

P.S. Don't forget to invite your friends and your elected officials to attend.

http://vcnva.org/anx/index.cfm/1,1,962,0,html/Summer-Training-Workshops

New Mining Act respects Treaty rights: Beaucage

TORONTO, April 30 - Anishinabek Nation leader John Beaucage, currently campaigning for the office of National Chief, has applauded a new legislative process undertaken by the Province of Ontario to amend its century-old Mining Act.

"The Mining Amendment Act will be the first piece of provincial legislation that expressly recognizes and affirms First Nations Treaty and aboriginal rights," said the Grand Council Chief, on behalf of 42 member Anishinabek First Nations. "Ontario's new collaborative approach to developing legislation and public policy is certainly innovative. It is respectful to the recognition of our rights and indicative of the province's commitment to working with First Nations on a government-to-government basis."

Introduced today, the Act includes provisions for First Nations to protect from mining development lands that have culturally-significant sites. Beaucage said the new legislation means the Crown, industry and all stakeholders must recognize and affirm the Treaties.

"Ministers Gravelle and Duguid deserve credit for their vision and have shown real leadership at the Cabinet table," said Beaucage. "We hope this process is reflected in the development of all future laws that may have an impact on First Nations."

New provisions for digital map staking and notification of First Nation communities also protect sensitive areas within traditional territories from unwanted exploitation.

One significant amendment to the existing Mining Act requires developers to create work plans for provincial approval outlining how they will be engaging with and consulting with First Nations.

"Consultation and accommodation of First Nations interests on our traditional territories is absolutely necessary," said Beaucage. "However, we have to move beyond basic consultation towards engagement and signing of impact benefit agreements between mining companies and First Nations. Agreements are the most practical means of achieving consent, collaboration and obtaining support for any given project."

An Anishinabek Nation consultation process produced 31 specific recommendations of over 100 submitted by First Nations through a technical table led by Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

"Certainly, the new Mining Amendment Act does not fully address all the concerns of our First Nations -- such as our opposition to uranium development, stronger involvement in decision-making processes, and stronger protections on water and the environment," said Beaucage. "However, we will take these small victories and continue to advocate for our communities and actively encourage mining development and exploration and dialogue in our territory."

Grand Council Chief Beaucage is encouraging the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to include grass-roots First Nations and their mining technical experts in the development of corresponding regulations and throughout the implementation of the new Mining Amendment Act.

The Anishinabek Nation established the Union of Ontario Indians as its political advocate and secretariat in 1949. The Union of Ontario Indians is the oldest political organization in Ontario and can trace its roots back to the Confederacy of Three Fires that have existed long before European contact.


For further information: Bob Goulais, Executive Assistant to the Grand Council Chief, (705) 498-5250, E-mail: goubob@anishinabek.ca;. Marci Becking, Communications Officer, Union of Ontario Indians, Phone: (705) 497-9127 (ext. 2290), Cell: (705) 494-0735 ,E-mail: becmar@anishinabek.ca.

http://www.nationtalk.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=20002

About All of Those Jobs VUI is Promising...

According to the the National Mining Association, the total number of mining jobs in the US in 2003 was 320,149. That's the number of all mining jobs in the US including coal, minerals, metals, sand/gravel, etc. The total number of uranium mining jobs in 2003? 321. That's right, three hundred and twenty-one...321. In the entire United States.

From the National Mining Association:

The mining industry is vital to the American economy. In 2003, the value of minerals was $57 billion. The value of metals produced in the United States was $8.3 billion. Industrial mineral production value was $29.6 billion in 2003, the same as in 2002.

The top nine mineral commodities produced in 2003 were crushed stone, portland cement, construction sand and gravel, gold, copper, iron ore, lime, and salt. In 2003, the U.S. produced 1,071,752,000 short tons of coal valued at $19.1 billion. The mining industry employed 320,149 workers, with an average annual income of $50,734.

Employment 1

Coal 104,824

Metal 28,080

Nonmetal 22,770

Sand and gravel 43,910

Stone 79,407

Uranium 321

Total 320,149

http://web.archive.org/web/20071016130155/www.nma.org/pdf/states_03/us2003.pdf

Senate Introduces Mining Reform Bill

By Josh Harkinson
Thu April 2, 2009

Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico has just introduced a mining reform bill in the Senate, bringing Congress one step closer to updating the nation's most outdated public lands law, the General Mining Law of 1872. A similar bill from House stalled in the Senate last year, where Majority leader Harry Reid, the son of a gold miner, has been a powerful ally of the hard rock minerals industry. Mining companies are still allowed to remove minerals from public lands without paying a cent in federal royalties. As I reported in a recent profile of Reid, Nevada remains an anachronism in a region that is becoming much less tolerant of the America's most polluting industry.

Bingaman's bill is less progressive than a similar House measure, but might win key support from Reid and moderate Republicans. According to Velma Smith, the manager of the Pew Campaign for Responsible Mining, the bill proposes reducing the House's proposed 8 percent royalty to something between 2 and 5 percent, to be set at the discretion of the Department of Interior. It would also impose a reclamation fee of .3 to 1 percent.

In what's been a keen interest of Bingaman's, the bill also asks the National Academy of Sciences to perform a study on uranium mining. Smith says uranium, which is the only energy mineral overseen by the mining law, may be moved to a leasing system. Environmentalists have been concerned that mining on any one of 1,200 uranium mining claims along the Colorado River could pollute the water supply for Las Vegas and Southern California.

In other important respects, the Senate and House bills are the same. Both call for stricter environmental permitting of mines, better ways for lands to be set off-limits to mining, and more financial assurances that mining companies will clean up after themselves. The cost of cleaning up abandoned mines in the U.S. is now estimated to be at least $32 billion.

Will Reid support the bill? "I really don’t know," Smith says. "My sense was that Senator Bingaman's office took a long time vetting this with a lot of people. I don’t see this as an extreme bill by any means. So I think there’s a chance for the industry and environmentalists to come together."

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/04/senate-introduces-mining-reform-bill

Massey and James River Coal Get Warnings From U.S. Mining Agency

By Staff Reports

Published: March 17, 2009

BUSINESS BRIEFS

VIRGINIA
U.S. mine agency warns Massey, James River

The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration yesterday warned 15 mining operations to clean up their health and safety practices or face stricter enforcement.

The agency said the 13 coal mines, a dirt-processing plant and a gold mine have been cited repeatedly for "significant and substantial" violations that could have caused serious injuries or illnesses.

Among the operations warned are two mines and a processing plant controlled by Richmond-based Massey Energy Co., the nation's fourth-largest coal producer by revenue. Massey issued a statement noting that several of its operations have been warned in the past and all were able to correct problems.

The agency also singled out Richmond-based James River Coal Co. about its Blue Diamond Coal Co.'s mine No. 77. A James River spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/business/local/article/BBBB17_20090316-204208/233234/

Uranium Mining Worries Pittsylvania County NAACP

It seems to me that VUI should be begging to pay for water tests...both now and as work continues at Coles Hill....they're sooo adamant that no harm is or will be done by anything that takes place at the mining sites. And before anyone says that there's nothing going on at Coles Hill, think about the number of employees VUI has in and around Coles Hill. There's something going on at Coles Hill...the public just doesn't know quite what is going on which begs these questions: what, exactly is going on, by what authority, and under whose supervision? VUI should be volunteering to pay for any water test requested by anyone whose well water could possibly be affected, now or ever. ...SB

By Denice Thibodeau

Published: March 12, 2009

CHATHAM — Members of the Pittsylvania County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People say they are concerned about how uranium mining will affect the area’s water.

The NAACP held a forum Thursday night to address concerns about the proposed uranium mining at Coles Hill, which is about six miles northeast of Chatham.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Coy Harville and Banister District Supervisor William Pritchett, who supervises the district where the proposed mining would take place, were at the meeting to answer questions posed by about 50 members of the NAACP and other interested members of the community.

One of the biggest concerns to many of the members was the question of water testing done by Virginia Uranium Inc., both before and after the core sample drilling was done.

Some residents felt minority homeowners were left out of the water sampling process, NAACP President Willie T. Fitzgerald said. They took those concerns to Pritchett, who contacted VUI.

VUI representatives Walter Coles and Henry Hurt told residents the testing was done at four ponds, wells at the site, 15 locations in nearby creeks and tributaries, as stipulated by the permit they received from the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy to do exploratory drilling.

Coles said VUI went beyond those stipulations and did an informal study of wells at homes within a mile of the site. He said VUI representatives knocked on doors and, if they received permission, tested the wells.

The printed statement VUI handed out at the meeting stated, “At the conclusion of the program, more than 80 residential wells (of about 200 in the area) had been voluntarily tested, including the wells of those minority families who had granted permission.”

Several people attending the meeting asked how they could get copies of the results of those tests, but Coles told them privacy issues left it up to the individual homeowners to decide whether to make the results public.

One resident, Deborah Lovelace, said she had obtained one of the test results, which indicated lead levels rose from 2.83 before drilling began to 17.9 afterward, making the water unsafe to drink.

“I would like to see more water testing done before any more drilling is done,” Lovelace said.

Several members of the group asked that the Board of Supervisors authorize and pay for more testing.

Harville told the crowd that if the supervisors did testing, it would have to be done to every well in the county at a cost of $1,000 to $1,500 per well, which would result in a tax increase.

He did agree to ask the Virginia Board of Health if it would look into evaluating the water testing that has been done.

Harville said he plans to wait for results of the study before making any personal decision on whether uranium mining should be allowed — a process he said will take two or three years, with many public hearings along the way.

Pritchett agreed.

“Let the study go forth so we can make a decision on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he said. “If it is harmful, I will not support it.”

• Contact Denice Thibodeau at dthibodeau@registerbee.com

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/uranium_mining_worries_pittsylvania_county_naacp/9687/

Brick Company Withdraws Application; Would Have Created 1000 Acre Open-Pit Mine

Published: March 4, 2009

CHATHAM – A brick manufacturer that wanted to open a factory in Pittsylvania County has withdrawn its applications for a special-use permit and rezoning of land off Berry Hill Road.

Odie Shelton, zoning administrator and director of code compliance for the county, announced Triangle Brick Co.’s decision during the Pittsylvania County Planning Commission’s regular meeting Tuesday night. Audience members applauded at Shelton’s announcement and about 75 people left the meeting held in the General District Courtroom.

The Planning Commission unanimously approved the withdrawal.

Scott Mollenkopf, president and chief executive officer of the Durham, N.C.-based company, notified county officials via e-mail Monday evening about the company’s decision. Mollenkopf, who did not attend the public hearing, could not be reached for comment Tuesday evening.

Residents in the Berry Hill Road area off westbound U.S. 58 said they were glad the company scuttled its plans.

“We’re just happy they withdrew,” said Julia Byrd, who lives off Buford Road near the site.

Byrd said she was concerned about the plant’s public health impacts. The project would have included open-pit, clay/shale mining on about 1,000 acres of land. Triangle applied for a special-use permit and requested that 1,328 acres off Berry Hill and Buford roads be rezoned from agricultural to heavy industry.

Thomas and Melissa Dabbs, whose property faces the proposed site, were concerned about health effects from the dust and pollution at the proposed plant. They moved to their property on Old Cabin Road about three years ago and felt the project would spoil the scenery and damage the quality of life there.

“We chose the spot because it’s peaceful, secluded,” Melissa Dabbs said.

Mollenkopf stated in the e-mail he would not attend scheduled public hearings on March 10 or March 17.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/brick_company_withdraws_application/9472/

How Does Mining Affect the People?

More from GreatMining.com

Monday, October 20th, 2008

Mining is destructive to the environment as trees and vegetation are cleared and burned for mining. Natural minerals and metals are stripped from the soil. In fact mining is one of the causes for deforestation. When environment is drastically affected, naturally the people will be affected.

The mining pits dug during land dredging mining remain as stagnant water pools serving as breeding ground for mosquitoes and other water-born insects.People living near such water pool areas have high possibility of getting water-born diseases such as malaria. The gravel, mud, and rocks displaced during river dredging mining disrupt the natural flow of the river. As a result, fish and other aquatic living organisms often die and fishermen find it very difficult to navigate in the obstructed rivers. Sand and gravel mining may sometimes pave way for contaminating the groundwater.

Chemicals used during mining process causes pollution to the environment, animals, and people.The chemicals such as cyanide, mercury, or methyl mercury used to amalgamate the metals and minerals extracted by mining are discharged into rivers, streams, bays, and oceans, thus contaminating the water bodies and the aquatic organisms such as fish living within the water bodies. People who consume such contaminated aquatic organisms are prone to serious health hazards. The contaminated water cannot be used for bathing, drinking, cooking, or washing clothes, thus creating water scarcity problem for people living nearby.

The toxic waste from mine tailings flow into either an abandoned mining pit or adjacent forest in the case of land dredging and pollute the river in the case of river dredging. The people who are exposed to the toxic waste from the tailings suffer health problems. They may suffer from skin rashes, headaches, vomiting, diarrhea, etc. Some mining involves the unintentional dispersal of heavy metals, such as lead, into the atmosphere. This can have serious health effects such as mental retardation in children. Asbestos dispersed into the environment during asbestos mining is life threatening for local residents and workers.

People living near mining areas or mining villages are very much disturbed and affected by the impact of mining. Theft, drugs/alcohol, prostitution, rape, cultural degradation and sexual abuse are unfortunately some of the worst problems of people living in mining areas. The poor people who face the health problems of mining cannot afford for a medical treatment, or the people who live in a remote village where a doctor is not accessible remain untreated for their illness.

The mining operators and their families may also face problems. The miners also have life risks when they are working in the mine. The family of small scale miners may suffer from financial and protection problems as the miners leave their family in search of work.

The effect of each proposed mining process on the environmental should be analyzed before granting permission to proceed mining. For example, the mining and use of asbestos are banned in most parts of the world life as asbestos dispersed into the environment is life threatening for people for several years.

Thus deforestation, mineral/metal depletion and chemical pollution due to mining can have unfavorable impact on the environment, aquatic habitats, people, animals, and of course the mining operators . Mining operators must be aware of the impacts of their mining operations, adopt self safety measures and ensure minimum risk to the environment and people.

This entry was posted on Monday, October 20th, 2008 at 9:12 am and is filed under Mining. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

http://www.greatmining.com/articles/how-does-mining-affect-the-people/

Unrestrained Mining May Cause Rice Shortage, Foreign Environment Experts Warn

KORONADAL CITY (MindaNews/27 January 2009) –

A moratorium on mining is needed if the Philippines is to avoid a rice shortage in the long term, foreign environment experts today said in a presentation of a study done in six mining sites across the country.

http://worldminingexplorationnews.com/27/01/2009/unrestrained-mining-may-cause-rice-shortage-foreign-environment-experts-warn-minda-news/

Judge to Rule Monday in Gold Mine Fight

Posted on January 25, 2009 by gregornot

RENO, Nev. (AP) — A federal judge intends to rule Monday on a complicated legal battle that pits religious and environmental concerns against the economic interests of hundreds of Nevada miners and the world’s biggest gold mining company.

Conservationists and Western Shoshone tribal members are seeking a preliminary injunction to halt part of a huge gold mine project they claim would desecrate a sacred landmark where many have worshipped for centuries on Mount Tenabo in northeast Nevada.

“This case is about one very big, very destructive mine and about one special, unique and very important place - so important that people come hundreds of miles to pray there to their creator,” said Roger Flynn, a lawyer for the tribe and the Great Basin Resource Watch.

http://gregornot.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/judge-to-rule-monday-in-gold-mine-fight/

Risks of Uranium Mining Not Worth Few Jobs

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:47 AM EST

Pittsylvania County is predominately a rural area.

What impact would mining uranium have on the local population, livestock, and water quality?

Are you willing to risk life as you know it?

With the lack of definitive studies that determine the long-term effects of uranium mining, would you or your loved ones want to take the chance of contaminated water, livestock, and health risk imposed on the local population?

What about the ability to stay in your home, or yet try selling it?

Virginia Tech did an environmental impact study and found concerns such as radioactive dust releases, mine water seepage, protection of miners from radioactivity, and the disposal of a large quantity of mine waste.

How will they dispose of mill tailings, containing toxic metals and chemical waste used in the treatment process?

As a concerned resident of Pittsylvania County, I feel the risks of uranium mining is a high cost to pay for a few jobs that might come to the area.

I put a higher price on my health, the environment, the livestock and our way of life.

Frank H. Benson III

Gretna

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/01/22/chatham/opinion/opinion05.txt