What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
47 Comments
- redcolumbine, on 05/07/2009, -6/+23America the Profitable.
I'm gladder than ever that I don't have children. - Number23, on 05/08/2009, -5/+16I'm glad you don't have children too.
- haydukeqc, on 05/07/2009, -0/+11Salazar had such a good little run too. Oh well back to reality.
- DOCNM, on 05/08/2009, -3/+11why ever try to change the place you live in to make it more livable?
- 700c26, on 05/08/2009, -5/+13These permits are for the middle of the desert, in the middle of nowhere, in one of the least populated tracts of land in the lower 48. Sounds like a good place to me. Rather there than next to a populated area that could be contaminated by pollution.
- jimfeet, on 05/08/2009, -4/+12"You mean like mining fuel for clean nuclear reactors?"
You mean like destroying natural beauty for the sake of a few dollars?
There, fixed it for you. - MattB123, on 05/08/2009, -1/+8The BLM seems very inconsistent. They are rabid in my area about protecting lands from people making or modifying trails on land that is open cattle range (the cows make a lot of trails and the ranchers put up fences) but give these guys the green light to tear up land adjacent to the Grand Canyon. WTF?
- inactive, on 05/08/2009, -1/+8I for one, am grateful to our Lord Jesus Christ that the BLM has found the uranium that God left there 6,000 years ago when the Grand Canyon was created. By the great flood.
/s - novenator, on 05/08/2009, -1/+7When did the BLM become such a tool?
- dtr300, on 05/08/2009, -0/+5Hmmm. Why would a company go to all this trouble for something dismissed by Taylor as a "paper shuffle"?
- Colecoman1982, on 05/08/2009, -0/+5Probably at lease a few years before they caught one of their offices trading artificially low oil drilling rights contracts for gifts and sexual favors (they had a story about it a year ago, or so).
- nicc, on 05/08/2009, -0/+4classified? it's been all over the news here the past few days!
- kenlaw, on 05/08/2009, -0/+4What could go with wrong with uranium mining next to river that provides drinking water to many millions of people. Glad my water only has mecury and lead.
- 4degrees, on 05/08/2009, -2/+5There goes the neighborhood. Seems no matter what regime is in power, the government likes to take what is protected.
- nicc, on 05/08/2009, -0/+3just wait to see if the Virginia Gov approves the permits for the Uranium mine here...it's estimated to be the largest cache in the US.
- GuitarGod181, on 05/08/2009, -8/+10Uranium is an important strategic resource and it doesn't matter where it is if we need it. The Grand Canyon isn't going to crumble just because a company pulls some uranium out. I'd honestly rather have a series of nuclear power plants than a hole in the ground.
- mrshickadance9, on 05/08/2009, -0/+2This reminds me of the beginning of the newer version of the hills have eyes. They shouldn't go...
- MindTrigger, on 05/08/2009, -2/+4What a ludicrous statement. We can get that ***** elsewhere. You know, we have a few very special places on this planet that can bring a sense of awe like the Grand Canyon does. Must we rape it? How about we go ahead and leave some of these protected areas the ***** alone?
- nicc, on 05/08/2009, -0/+2here's a Forbes article about it: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/05/08/ap639827 ...
it's a 119 million pound deposit in Pittsylvania County on the VA/NC state line valued at about $7-10billion - imnojezus, on 05/08/2009, -0/+2Do something good so you can point to it when people call you out for evil.
- jimfeet, on 05/08/2009, -0/+2Although it's a bit cloudy from the article, it appears this actually stems from action taken before Salazar took the reins.
"The committee employed its rarely used emergency declaration authority to withdraw the lands, but then-Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne rejected the panel's request, saying the committee did not have a quorum on the vote, which was taken after Republicans walked out in protest, arguing that there was no emergency to prompt the move (E&E Daily, June 26, 2008)."
The last paragraph probably says it best, "This is an indication that the BLM needs leadership from the new administration..." - WhiteRaven, on 05/09/2009, -0/+1It is a fact that there is currently a uranium shortage in the world. Talking about the theoretical reserves is pointless.
- WhiteRaven, on 05/09/2009, -0/+1I don't understand how allowing people to actually extract valuable materials from public land can possibly be described as corruption. It's what's supposed to happen!
- WhiteRaven, on 05/09/2009, -0/+1Unless you can describe what effect uranium mining would actually have on the grand canyon, your objection are hollow hysteria.
Instead of using words like rape and awe, how about some truth? - WhiteRaven, on 05/09/2009, -0/+1Colecoman1982, I see nothing in your post that indicates that we have "plenty". You only reported percentages of what is currently being produced or if you prefer, extracted.
How does that production compare with demand? Are you aware that, for example, NASA is running short of plutonium, a byproduct of uranium processing? - Colecoman1982, on 05/08/2009, -1/+2Uranium _is_ an important resource, but we already have plenty of it as this quote implies:
"In 2005, seventeen countries produced concentrated uranium oxides, with Canada (27.9% of world production) and Australia (22.8%) being the largest producers and Kazakhstan (10.5%), Russia (8.0%), Namibia (7.5%), Niger (7.4%), Uzbekistan (5.5%), the United States (2.5%), Ukraine (1.9%) and China (1.7%) also producing significant amounts." -Wikipedia article on Uranium
Considering that, not only are a number of those nations our allies, but we are one of the biggest producers it's absurd to think we should be risking any environmental issues in order to mine for more. Even more important, the cost of Uranium is almost nothing compared to the other expenses in running a nuclear power plant. The price could multiply without having a significant impact on the cost of nuclear power and only needs to go up a little bit before it becomes cost effective to strain it out of sea water. At that point, we have enough at our disposal for millenia and it can be gotten from any part of our coastline.
This is nothing like the issue of drilling for oil in Alaska or off the East coast. In those cases, I still may not agree that it's worth the environmental risk (especially the off coast drilling that is known to be a, relatively, small reserve that will take too long to develop to be useful for the present crisis') but, at least, I can see why the lack in available resources would provide some kind of justification for considering it. - WhiteRaven, on 05/09/2009, -0/+1Describe the damage that may be done. Describe the "blow" you are imagining in your hysterical little head.
- roseap, on 05/08/2009, -1/+2mmmmm.... yellow cake.... <drooling>
- EvansHall, on 05/09/2009, -0/+1Interesting that the President ain't catching any flack from Diggers. Some anti-Bush comment would be number one right now if this happened during his presidency.
- fatfreddyscat, on 05/08/2009, -0/+1In one of the biggest blows to the environment since President Obama took office, the Bureau of Land Management just authorized new uranium exploration permits in land around the Grand Canyon.
- OneOfNone, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1In most cases it is supposed to happen, in some it is not. And public should get fair return for the public resources given out. Otherwise, there would not have been any need for BLM.
That's where corruption can come in: areas that are more valuable to public when left alone can be given up for extraction, and conditions on which the resources are given out can be just a tiny bit less than fair to the public.
Thus, tens of thousands in bribes to BLM officials can result in hundreds of millions in profits to extracting companies. Companies are neither good nor bad, and they have an obligation to maximize profits and be ahead of competitors. Meanwhile, humans are corruptible. Connect the dots. - pinchduck, on 05/08/2009, -0/+1Bush hates the environment!!! Oh, wait...
- MindTrigger, on 05/12/2009, -0/+1@WhiteRaven
You have noticed that mining usually leaves a gigantic ***** hole in the ground, right? Do a little of your own research on the negative affects of mining. We don't need to mine the grand canyon. - redcolumbine, on 05/12/2009, -0/+1I'm white.
- OneOfNone, on 05/08/2009, -2/+2BLM bureaucrats standing alone, heroically, between numerous willing companies and their great potential profits. Absolutely no way there could be corruption going on, like it happened to MMS. /s http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/oiil.scanda ...
- diggdiggerid, on 05/08/2009, -4/+4Terrible.
- pct2, on 05/08/2009, -1/+1Please read the .pdf the New York Times links to. They've given them, wait for it, access to about 5 acres on which to look for uranium. Then get on maps.google.com and look up the kaibab plateau and you'll see, while close to the canyon, it doesn't pose a serious threat to seeing the beauty of the canyon destroyed.
The NYT's article title, and the subsequently posted one here on digg, give the false impression that companies are drilling IN the Grand Canyon, when in fact they are drilling NEAR it (near being a relative term the exploration isn't really that close). - brokensystem, on 05/09/2009, -0/+0
"You mean like mining fuel for clean nuclear reactors?"
Clean? The hazardous waste byproduct last for thousands of years and no one still has any good idea of what to do with it. Burying it in the ground can only lead to more problems.
http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear- ... - WhiteRaven, on 05/09/2009, -1/+1You kind of have it backwards. The act of protection *"takes" land away from people who actually want to use it.
- Colecoman1982, on 05/08/2009, -1/+1Um, there's more than enough exploitable Uranium in the world to last us thousands of years even with our increasing rate of energy consumption. Sure, the price will go up but that doesn't matter as the price of Uranium is such a small part of the cost of generating nuclear power that it doesn't really matter. Also, the price only has to go up so much before it becomes cost effective to process the, naturally occurring, dissolved uranium out of ocean water. There may not be many parts-per-million, but the sheer volume of the worlds oceans means that there are massive uranium reserves out there.
- twinklyJesus, on 05/08/2009, -2/+1"The One" didn't raise his arms and make it stop? Did Bush, suddenly take over Obamamao's Administration and allow this to happen? Can you STILL blame the Republicans, with their minority in the House and Senate, for passing this?
- offrdbandit, on 05/08/2009, -8/+6"why ever try to change the place you live in to make it more livable?"
You mean like mining fuel for clean nuclear reactors? - Bloodboiler, on 05/08/2009, -4/+2Expect to see more of this. There's not all that much exploitable Uranium reserves left in the world.
- OwdenBowden, on 05/08/2009, -5/+2Thank you BHO - change you can believe in.
Jackass. - ptkfgs, on 05/08/2009, -8/+4"You mean like destroying natural beauty for the sake of a few dollars?"
You mean like mining fuel for clean nuclear reactors? - pathouston22, on 05/08/2009, -11/+3Hey, if you don't like America, you can always go live in Africa, South America, Central America, Middle East, or Asia.
- edrodgers731, on 05/08/2009, -13/+0Hey, I don't see what the big deal is. We are simply cleaning the Earth by removing the toxic mineral. Besides, Uranium contributes to global warming. Look it up.
If crude oil started pouring out into the Colorado river, would we clean it up, or just call it natural? I guess we would clean it up, in spite of the environmental impact of our cleanup efforts.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is