JTen miles south of the entrance to the southern edge of the Grand Canyon is a giant hole in the ground where miners hope to make it big with one of the rarest but deadliest elements on Earth: uranium. Although it is only about 17 acres in area, the canyon mine extends more than 1,400 feet to the earth’s surface and critics worry it could scare away the grand canyon and contaminate the water of a nearby tribe.
Mining has been predominant in the region surrounding the Grand Canyon since the early 20th century. During the atomic era of the 1950s, it was a bit like the wild west: interest in uranium mining increased and evolved into a highly unregulated industry, where people strolled with Geiger counters and shovels, with the hope of selling it to the government. for profit.
As the price of uranium plummeted, so did interest in undermining the region. However, in the mid-2000s, there was a massive increase in the market in the ore, and madness began again. Although better regulated, by the end of the decade there were more than a thousand new uranium mining demands in the area surrounding the Grand Canyon.
In 2012, unsure of the environmental consequences of uranium mining in the region, the Department of the Interior banned the participation of new claims for twenty years, effectively banning all new mining activities near the Grand Canyon.
Conservationists were ecstatic about it. But there was only one small problem.
Using a mining law of 1872 that critics consider obsolete, the USFS determined that miners who had established “valid existing rights” to mine before the ban could continue to do so. To have these rights, a miner must have, prior to the ban, discovered and unearthed a “valuable mineral deposit,” one that can be extracted, disposed of, and traded for profit.
Summary of beast travels
Get everyone in your inbox.
The USFS found a mine that possessed “valid existing rights” and was therefore exempt from the ban: Canyon Mine.
The 2012 ban continued to be examined by both parties. Conservationists argued that the ban should be made permanent, meanwhile, the Trump administration took steps to potentially eliminate it and make uranium more lucrative as a geopolitical strategy.
As a result, Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) presented the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act to the House on February 26, 2019, a bill that seeks to permanently ban all new mining in the region and protect the Grand Canyon of industrial industry. interests.
The bill passed the House by a partisan vote and has been introduced in the Senate, where it is also expected to be passed.
While environmentalists see this as a good first step, the singular issue remains: Canyon Mine, which courtesy of the USFS decision in 2012, would be exempt from the permanent ban.
To get to the Canyon Mine controversy, you don’t need to go down the well too much. In fact, even the very name of the mine is a point of controversy.
The mine, which was named the Canyon Mine by several owners for several decades, was recently renamed by its owner, Energy Fuels, at the Pinyon Planes mine.
Outlets have 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 this was being done, “because environmentalists made it look like we were undermining the Grand Canyon, which we are not.”
Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit conservation organization, laughed, “They called it Canyon Mine in the first place because of its proximity to the Grand Canyon, not to us.” he said. He added: “It’s funny, I don’t think Pinyon Planes is even a real place.”
As you delve deeper into the mine, the story only becomes more complex, dark and strange.
Get this: In the 35 years it has been in operation, no uranium ore has ever been 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 the very least, the potential for catastrophes.
To begin with, the mine operates under a USFS environmental impact statement, as required by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) dating back to 1986, one that was originally challenged by the Havasupai tribe. Despite bans and increased knowledge about Grand Canyon hydrology, as well as calls from conservationists and local tribes to conduct a new study, the USFS has refused to do so. A federal appellate court upheld this USFS decision in 2013.
Moore defended the decision and said it was unnecessary to do a new study. “It’s like getting a permit for your house,” Moore told The Beast. “We were already approved, why get a new one?”
McKinnon, of course, sees it differently. Citing that they had not extracted any uranium, he laughed: “If each EIS took five years, they could have made four. The truth is, “he added,” they don’t want to delve into the facts and the truth because they are afraid. “
Still, in 2017 the inevitable happened. Despite the original 1986 environmental impact statement stating that the mine “would have no significant impact” on the environment or the public interest, “and also suggested that” floods were almost impossible, “Energy Fuels drilled a aquifer in the mine and water gushed out.
How “bad” this situation is depends on who you ask.
For environmentalists, it’s so close to disaster. Several groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, have called for the shutdown 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 it to Utah. Still, Energy Fuels sees no problem.
In fact, when The Daily Beast mentioned the flood in Energy Fuels, Moore defended it and said it was done “on purpose,” “all part of the plan” and “in compliance with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ( ADEQ) and the USFS “.
Moore explained that the aquifer they drilled is located, isolated, separate from the aquifers. Environmentalists are more afraid of being polluted (groundwater aquifers) and that there is “no evidence” and “no possibility” that it will currently affect or in the future impact the Grand Canyon.
Of course, environmentalists are already worried about it happening. McKinnon said, “No one can assure us that this drilled aquifer was not connected to the Grand Canyon springs, which could drain the springs and contaminate groundwater.”
Although Moore said they had monitors to test groundwater, environmentalists insist more extensive monitoring should be done, especially because, “ADEQ has acknowledged that if there was a uranium leak in groundwater, there is no plan to fix it, ”McKinnon said.
“The bottom line,” argues McKinnon, “is that they have created a flood problem. The water that floods the mine and is exploited exceeds EPA standards for dissolved uranium and arsenic. There are no guarantees. in the long run, there are no guarantees that mining will not harm the deep aquifer in the near future, even if it is not damaged now ”.
Moore argues that flooding has been drastically reduced in recent years and that its comparison with EPA standards for drinking water, as environmentalists often do, is irrelevant.
“No one suggests you drink water,” Moore intoned.
As of now and as a result of these floods, the ADEQ is really in the midst of developing a new draft of the aquifer protection permit for the Pinyon Planes mine, which is expected to be out on 26 ‘April.
While this could lead to the end of the Pinyon Planes mine, conservationists are not waiting.
“We applied for a closure permit, but we doubt that 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 some reason,” he said, adding, “although it’s the best way to address climate change.” He went so far as to state that “all these assertions [made by conservationists] they are not based on science or reality. “
For conservationists, they only expect this bill to go through the Senate, although it will be the first battle of what they consider a long war.
“Passing this legislation would demonstrate the need to deal with Canyon Mine even more strongly,” Taylor McKinnon said. He added: “But the bill itself is narrow. It’s important, but a lot more needs to be done, including multi-level cleanup and a billion dollars. “