Havasupai Guardians of the Grand Canyon.
Photo credit: Brenda Norrell
On July 21, 2009, Obama Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a two year "time out" on new uranium mining claims on nearly a million acres of federal land near the Grand Canyon, in response, it seemed, to the protest of environmentalists, and, Native Americans, who still suffer cancers and other illnesses at rates many times higher than the general population, consequent to uranium mining on or near tribal lands.
Cause for celebration? Not in the least. Salazar's announcement is straight out of Orwell's 1984. This two year "time out" is no time out at all, because new mining claims are not the issue. More than 10,000 uranium claims have been staked on federal land immediately surrounding the Grand Canyon in the last three years. According to Roger Clark, Air and Energy Director of the Grand Canyon Trust, if even 1% of these claims become mines, they could seriously contaminate both ground and surface water surrounding the Grand Canyon, which drains into the Colorado River and contributes to the drinking water of 30 million people in the Lower Colorado River Basin, in Arizona, Colorado, and California.
On the day that Salazar announced his faux time out, the Native Havasupai, who make their home at the base of the Grand Canyon's South Rim, began gathering to host a weekend teach-in and speak-out against uranium mining at Red Butte, a Havasupai sacred site they hope to defend from contamination and desecration by Denison Mines' plan to reopen its nearby Arizona One uranium mine. Denison, a collaboration of Dennison Mines, Inc. and Uranium International, was then reported to be only one Arizona air quality permit away from reopening the mine closed 20 years ago.
In November 2008, the Motley Fool stock adviser, in "A Fresh Jolt for Uranium," said that Denison's prospects, like those of other small players in uranium mining were benefiting from increased demand created by uranium mining giant Cameco's ongoing difficulty getting its jet bore uranium mine into operation at Cigar Lake, on Native Canadian land in northern Saskatchewan. In October 2006, while Cameco's Cigar Lake mine was still under construction, a wall of water knocked it into Cigar Lake and adjacent waterways.
The Fool also pointed out that uranium supplies from decomissioned nuclear warheads, a.k.a., "the bomb mine," are running out:
"As it stands, uranium usage routinely exceeds global mine production. We can tap decommissioned warheads and other stockpiles to fill the gap, but that won't last forever. The longer Cigar Lake is delayed, the faster we blow through above-ground supply. That would do wonders for the spot price of uranium."
On July 30th, 2009, nine days after Salazar's announcement, and, four days after the Havasupai concluded their protest, the Motley Fool named Denison as their favorite "penny stock" of the week, meaning, the cheap stock most likely to take off from a very low price. and, maybe even make you rich, on a very small investment:
''Uranium was recently at its lowest price level. With brent price increase, uranium and fossil fuels tend to follow the price increase,'' wrote CAPS investor jajege in June. ''New nuclear power plants are planned and will require more uranium production, especially after the stock of uranium from the nuclear weapons are running out.''
It's still a very risky stock, though, the Fool warned, but only because of its low capitalization of only $2.5 million, its heavy debt load of $100 million, and, the risky nature of mining ventures.
Not because of Interior Secretary Salazar's ''time out,'' and, not because of environmentalist and native resistance, although, in November 2008, the Fool did warn of ''delays in permitting and other pesky problems'':
"None of these companies is immune to mining mishaps. Delays in permitting and other pesky problems have pushed back production schedules pretty much across the board. Still, the growth outlook is very favorable for Denison, which makes it the sort of stock you should own."
In 2006, the Navajo Nation Tribal Council passed a ban on uranium mining, the first native claim to sovereignty, over natural resources of its kind. Navajo environmentalists have been defending the ban, against enormous pressure, ever since. At Red Butte, members of the Havasupai Tribe said that they hope to enact a ban as well.
As with the Navajo ban, a fundamental question would then be whether uranium mining which endangers the water table well beyond the mining claim itself, violates a Havasupai ban, and/or, the environmental rights of wider communities, including the 30 million people of Arizona, Colorado, and California, who depend on the Colorado River's contribution to the drinking water in the Colorado River Basin.
Free Speech Radio News (FSRN) reported on the gathering at Red Butte, and Censored News writer/editor Brenda Norrell captured video: "Havasupai: Singing away uranium mining."
Comments
I don't get the point of your article. Is it defending the indigeneous people's rights or providing penny stock investment advice. Sorry but it is unclear and makes some statements without providing any support. For example, "who still suffer cancers and other illnesses at rates many times higher than the general population, consequent to uranium mining on or near tribal lands." Is there documented support for this comment? I can understand this might be true but you need to substantiate such comments and provide a little more information.
You also don't explore the different arguments for and against uranium mining and nuclear energy in general. For example, many environmentalists now agree that nuclear energy is the best alternative to fossil fuel energy generation because it has zero greenhouse emissions.
This is a topic that interests me for a number of reasons however articles like yours do not shine any light at all on the facts, just pull together disparate data.
Nuclear power has a CO2 output - from the mining, milling, transport of Uranium, the construction and eventual decommissioning of the power plants, and the security and superintendence of ALL SITES IN PERPETUITY.
Also it requires coal fired plants attached to the facilities in case of a sudden failure or shut down.
They vent radioactive gases and suspended solid particles EVERY DAY.
Around nuke plants the prevalence of cancer, childhood leukemia is greater than elsewhere.
Cancer references- URLs not allowed on this comment page- put a search engine on : cancer + "nuclear power".
Unannounced emissions occur and are not reported- makes it harder to track adverse events.
Would you want to live next to one of Denison Mines' shaft vents?
Check out uraniunwatch <dot> org <slash> images <slash> lasalmines <slash> beavershaft.0905.jpg
All very good feedback, I appreciate you taking the time to provide it. I could put number of references stating the contrary. I take your point on CO2 emissions however that is not my point.
My point is that this article is not organised but chaotic. Why hasn't it been properly referenced with similar data points shared by the readers. Actually it is more informative for an investor than anything else. My rant is more about poor journalism.
Just to be clear also, your references to cancer refer Nuclear Power Plants and those references abound especially when considering older generation power plants. This is a mine.
No I wouldn't want to live next to this mine. I don't think anybody would live next to any sort of mine if given the opportunity. The problem is that we all want "stuff" and the primary material for that "stuff" comes from mines.
And the electricity running through the computer you are looking at needs to be generated.
Even solar panels need mines.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!