Mining in northern Arizona Case Essay
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
Mining in northern Arizona Case Essay
Mining in northern Arizona has had a checkered past.
And mining for uranium ore has had a sullied one.
Most of the problems can be traced to 1872 and a federal mining law that essentially gave away the store in the interest of opening the West to exploration and settlement.
The fact that such a law, which gave private citizens ownership of mineral rights on federal lands, has been allowed to remain on the books for 139 years is testimony to the power of special interests over Congress. We have advocated in this space before and continue to do so today for an overhaul or even the abolition of a law that does far more harm than good.
That said, it is clear that mining reform is not on the near horizon in Congress, so other ways to address uranium mining are needed. Over the years, dozens of federal, state and local laws have sprung up to control the impacts of a wide range of commercial activities on public and private lands, and mining is among them. But the deadly legacy of “yellowcake” on the health of local citizens as well as the environment has many worried that those laws and regulations are not enough.
NEXT BEST THING
As a result, opponents to continued uranium mining have called for what they see as the next best thing to repeal of the 1872 Mining Law: withdrawing more than a million acres north and south of Grand Canyon National Park from future mining for 20 years, the maximum allowed under the law. (Only Congress can enact a permanent withdrawal.)
At present, there is a two-year moratorium while studies are prepared that mining opponents hope will justify the withdrawal based on unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Those include groundwater contamination, radioactive dust and even the destruction of the mighty Colorado River as a source for drinking water.
The mining industry, on the other hand, has described new techniques that it says will minimize radioactive exposure while serving a vital national need.
NO SLAM DUNK
Those studies were released this past week, and neither side got the slam dunk it was hoping for.
We’ll start with the Grand Canyon and the value it has in the debate as both a massive watershed and a tourist attraction. Neither, according to the studies, would be much affected by modern uranium mining. Radioactive uranium ore, contained in what are called “breccia pipes” and exposed by the deep fissures in canyon country, has leached into local springs and streams for eons. Many test wells near these deposits show water that is unsafe to drink, regardless of mining activity.
As for tourists and mining operations, the studies anticipate few interactions between the two groups. Visitation to the park and tourist spending aren’t likely to be affected much at all.
As for water contamination, one of the biggest concerns by conservationists has been maintaining the Colorado River as a source of drinking water. But the studies found that the river’s volume is so great that whatever radioactive materials might find their way into it would have a negligible impact.
SHALLOW AQUIFERS AT RISK
That doesn’t mean other mining activities would not pose a risk for contaminating groundwater. So-called shallow, “perched” aquifers near some mines that are now drinkable could see levels of radioactivity above drinking water standards if mine shafts were flooded and ore in the breccia pipes found its way into those pools.
How great is the risk? The studies, which take up two volumes each the size of a big-city phone book, use a complex matrix of factors for each of the likely mine sites, based on a seven-year life of a typical mine. The highest risk of contamination is assessed at 13 percent, which is considered moderate. Most others are considered low.
Still, is 13 percent a chance worth taking? The studies point out that most of the perched aquifers are isolated and self-contained, while the larger and deeper aquifers are too large to be affected by contamination from one mine.
The biggest wild card is one that a 20-year withdrawal is not going to affect: The impact of mining claims that are grandfathered and likely to be mined if uranium prices remain high. The studies identified about a dozen likely mine sites under the moratorium, vs. 30 if there is no withdrawal. And that doesn’t count the mines that might be developed on nearly state and private lands, which are not covered in any federal withdrawal.
OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND
In other words, while a blanket withdrawal might seem on paper to end uranium mining near the Grand Canyon, its likely effect will be to push the problem out of sight and out of mind when, in fact, the industry needs more exposure and oversight than ever.
What’s needed is a dramatic increase in the resources available to regulators who oversee the mining industry. As Reporter Cyndy Cole has documented, the Arizona agency in charge of reviewing plans and conducting inspections for a reopened uranium mine on the Arizona Strip wasn’t staffed up enough to enforce key conditions of the operating permit. It relied on a sort of honor system that had mine officials filling out reports and certifying themselves as in compliance.
Even though today’s mines bear little resemblance to Cold War era mines, the days when mine operators do self-policing should be long gone. More frequent site visits by inspectors are needed, and armed with the power to shut down a mine immediately until violations are corrected.
If we can’t change the 1872 Mining Law and if at least a dozen uranium mines will be operating on the Colorado Plateau regardless of a federal withdrawal, let’s put the focus on tightly regulating an industry that has the potential to do much good if its risks can be brought under control.
Contributors: Publisher Don Rowley, Editor Randy Wilson, and citizen members Doug Miller, Blake Nabours, Liz Rutledge, Brian Johnson and Helen Merrill.
(Copyright 2011 azdailysun.com)
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!