JJust 10 miles south of the southern edge of the Grand Canyon is a huge hole in the ground, where miners hope to hit it with one of the rarest but deadliest elements on Earth – uranium. Despite having only an area of about 17 acres, the Canyon Mine extends over 1,400 feet down to Earth’s surface and critics worry it could scar the Grand Canyon itself and pollute the water of a nearby tribe.
Mining has been predominant in the region around the Grand Canyon since the early 1900s. In the atomic age of the 1950s, it was a bit like the Wild West – interest in uranium mining grew and evolved into a highly unregulated industry, where people they walked with Geiger counters and shovels, hoping to sell it to the government for profit.
As the price of uranium fell, so did interest in mining the region. However, in the mid-2000s, there was a massive growth in the mineral market, and the madness returned. Although better regulated, by the end of the decade there were over a thousand new uranium mining applications in the area around the Grand Canyon.
In 2012, unsure of the ecological consequences of uranium mining in the region, the Department of the Interior banned participation in new claims for 20 years – effectively banning all new mining activities near the Grand Canyon.
Conservatives have been ecstatic about this. But there was only a small problem.
Using an 1872 mining law that critics call obsolete, the USFS established that miners who had established “existing valid rights” to exercise before the ban could continue to do so. In order to have such rights, a miner must have, before the ban, discovered and dug up a “valuable mineral deposit” – one that can be extracted, removed and traded profitably.
Beast Travel Digest
Get the whole world in your inbox.
The USFS has found a mine that has “valid existing rights” and is therefore exempt from the ban – Canyon Mine.
The 2012 ban continued to attract the attention of both sides. Conservatives have argued that the ban should be permanent, meanwhile, the Trump administration has taken steps to potentially eliminate it and make uranium more profitable as a geopolitical strategy.
As a result, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) introduced the Grand Canyon Centenary Protection Act on February 26, 2019, a bill aimed at permanently banning new mining operations in the region and protecting the Grand Canyon against industrial industry. interest.
The bill was adopted by Parliament by a partisan vote and was introduced in the Senate, where it is expected to be adopted.
While environmentalists see this as a good first step, the only problem remains – Canyon Mine, which, thanks to the USFS decision in 2012, would remain exempt from the permanent ban.
To get to the controversial Canyon Mine, you don’t need to go down too much on the axis. In fact, even the name of the mine itself is a point of contention.
The mine, which has been called the Canyon mine for several owners and several decades, was recently renamed by its owner, Energy Fuels, to the Pinyon Planes mine.
The outlets speculated that this was done to draw less attention to the mine. Curtis Moore, the company’s vice president of marketing and corporate development, confirmed this when he told The Daily Beast that it was done, “because environmentalists made it look like we mined in the Grand Canyon, which we are not.” .
Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit conservation organization, laughed at this: “They called it Canyon Mine primarily because of how close it is to the Grand Canyon – not us,” he said. He added: “It’s funny, I don’t think Pinyon Planes is a real place.”
As you dig deeper into the mine, the story becomes more complex, obscure and strange.
Get this: In the 35 years it has been in operation, there has never been a uranium ore extracted from the mine. While this is mainly due to the lack of uranium demand, among other factors, this does not mean that the mine is not full of other problems – or at least, the potential for catastrophic ones.
For a start, the mine operates in accordance with a USFS environmental impact statement, as required by the 1986 National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), one that was initially challenged by the Havasupai tribe in court. Despite bans and increased knowledge about the Grand Canyon’s hydrology, as well as calls from conservatives and local tribes to conduct a new study, the USFS refused to do so. A federal appellate court upheld this USFS decision in 2013.
Moore defended the decision and said there was no need for a new study. “It’s like getting a permit for your house,” Moore told The Beast. “We’ve already been approved – why get a new one?”
McKinnon, of course, sees it differently. Citing that they did not extract any uranium, he laughed: “If each EIS lasted 5 years, it could have done four so far. The truth is, “he added,” that they do not want to delve into the facts and the truth because they are afraid. “
However, in 2017, the inevitable happened. Despite the initial environmental impact statement in 1986, which stated that the mine “will not have a significant impact” on the environment or the public interest “and also suggests that” floods were almost impossible “, Energy Fuels pierced an aquifer in mine and water came out gushing.
How “bad” this situation is depends on who you ask.
For environmentalists, it is just as close to disaster. Several groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, have called for the closure and closure of the mine as a result of the floods and the company’s response to it, which, according to environmentalists and Arizona Daily Sun. it involved spraying contaminated water into forests and loading water into trucks to take them to Utah. However, energy fuels do not see a problem.
In fact, when The Daily Beast mentioned the floods of energy fuels, Moore defended it, saying it was “done on purpose,” “part of the plan,” and “according to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and USFS. ”
Moore explained that the aquifer they pierced is perched, isolated, separate from aquifers. Ecologists are most afraid of being contaminated – groundwater aquifers – and that there is “no evidence” and “no chance” that it will have an impact now or in the future will have an impact on the Grand Canyon.
Of course, environmentalists are already worried that it will happen. McKinnon said, “No one can assure us, either, that the pierced aquifer was not connected to the Grand Canyon springs – which could drain the springs and contaminate groundwater.”
While Moore said they have monitors for groundwater testing, environmentalists insist that more monitoring should be done, especially since, “ADEQ has acknowledged that if there is a uranium leak in groundwater, there is no no remediation plan, “McKinnon said.
“The conclusion,” says McKinnon, “is that they created a flood problem. Water that floods the mine and is pumped exceeds EPA standards for dissolved uranium and arsenic. There are no long-term guarantees – there are no guarantees that mining will not affect the deep aquifer in the near future, even if it is not affected now ”.
Moore says flooding has been drastically reduced in recent years and that comparing it to EPA drinking water standards, as environmentalists often do, is irrelevant.
“Nobody suggests you drink water,” Moore sang.
Currently and as a result of these floods, ADEQ is in fact in the process of developing a new draft aquifer protection permit for the Pinyon Planes mine, which is expected to be launched by 26 April.
Although this could lead to the end of the Pinyon Planes Mine, conservatives are not raising their hopes.
“We asked for a permit to close them, but we doubt this will happen,” McKinnon said.
For Moore, closing the mine would be a huge mistake. He sees uranium as a path to a greener, carbon-free future. “These activists are anti-nuclear for a reason,” he said, adding, “even if it is the best way to address climate change.” He went so far as to say that “all these statements [made by conservationists] it is not based on science or reality. ”
For the Conservatives, they only hope that this bill will pass the Senate, although it will be the first battle in what they consider a long war.
“Adopting this legislation would demonstrate the need to deal with the Canyon Mine even more strongly,” said Taylor McKinnon. He added: “But the bill itself is narrow. It is important, but there is still much to be done, including a multi-level, multi-billion dollar cleanup. ”