Trump admin set to approve Arizona land swap for mine opposed by Native Americans

By Ernest Scheyder

 

FILE PHOTO: A map shows the area of subsidence that could occur if Resolution Copper Mining goes forward with its plan to extract an enormous ore deposit from deep within the earth a few miles outside Superior, Arizona, June 13, 2017. REUTERS/Nancy Wiechec

 

(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's outgoing administration is set to approve a controversial land swap later this month that would give Rio Tinto Ltd and partners more than 2,400 acres (9.7 square kilometers) to build an Arizona copper mine, even though the project would destroy religious and cultural sites sacred to Native Americans.

 

Tribal leaders and other critics allege that the U.S. government is fast-tracking the environmental review process before Trump is replaced by President-elect Joe Biden next month, charges the government and Rio Tinto deny.

 

The land swap, outlined in U.S. government documents, reflects the tension between the increasing global attention on the rights of indigenous peoples and the need to boost metals production to power electric vehicles and reduce global carbon emissions. Copper is used to make solar panels, wind turbines and EV batteries.

 

The San Carlos Apache Tribe says the mine, if built, would destroy land considered the home of religious deities and sites used for tribal ceremonies, including one to celebrate teenage girls who have come of age.

 

"This is about religious freedom," said Terry Rambler, chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. "For me and our people, it's a fight not only for today, but for our children and grandchildren."

 

Rio and partner BHP Group Plc have sought for years to access the underground copper deposit in the Tonto National Forest, which abuts the San Carlos reservation.

 

A last-minute addition to a 2014 Pentagon funding bill signed by former President Barack Obama allowed Rio to exchange land it owns near the forest for land above the copper reserve, with the caveat that the swap could not occur until an environmental study was published.

 

The U.S. Forest Service has changed its publication estimate several times. Last April, the agency said it would come in 2021. Three months later, that was changed to December 2020 because the agency said it has been completing its review faster than expected.

 

The Forest Service referred requests for comment to a Dec. 1 statement where it said the plan for December publication "does not reflect an acceleration."

 

The San Carlos Apache tribe have worked with mining companies in the past, most recently selling water to a mine owned by Freeport-McMoRan Inc, though the tribe said that was a decision they made themselves, not one decided by the U.S. government, as with the land swap.

 

Rio said that its Resolution Copper subsidiary, which is developing the mine, has not tried to expedite the permit process.

 

"The project is not being 'fast-tracked'," the company said, adding that if the land swap occurs, the Apache will be able to visit the land for the next few decades.

 

Rio faced criticism earlier this year for destroying indigenous sites in Australia. Native Americans say the mining giant is poised to make the same mistake in Arizona.

 

Rio said it has consulted with the San Carlos and other Arizona tribes about preserving other culturally significant locations, including Apache Leap, a rock cliff where in the late 19th Century Apaches jumped to their deaths to avoid capture by U.S. troops.

 

Biden was overwhelmingly supported in last month's U.S. presidential election by Native Americans across Arizona, exit polling data show. Tribal leaders are already lobbying the incoming president to block construction permits for the mine.

 

Rambler, the tribal chairman, said Biden's transition team is considering his request to meet with the president-elect.

 

(Reporting by Ernest Scheyder; editing by Amran Abocar and Marguerita Choy)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-12-07

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

 

As an environmentalist and lover of nature I am appalled by this news. Yet as a large long term shareholder in Rio Tinto I am celebrating this. Conflicted or what?

 

Worth pointing out again that the "Green" movement is not altogether clued in on where copper/lithium etc actually comes from. Copper is vital for "green" apparatus such as batteries and wiring in these wonderful world saving new technologies like electric cars and wind turbines. Copper is also generally mined in open cast pits on a colossal scale.  An ugly scar on the landscape doesn't even start to describe this trapping of modern green-ness. Subsidies and grants muddy the waters so much that determining which technology between fossil fuels and fashionable modern alternatives is better for the environment is nigh on impossible. 

 

 Best solution. Give Rio Tinto the land, let them mine it dry, then fill in the hole with dirt or water and hand the land back to the Indians. The greens get their batteries and wiring, and the Indians only have some short term inconvenience, and the Rio shareholders get ever larger dividends. Win, win, win.

 

 

22 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

As an environmentalist and lover of nature I am appalled by this news. Yet as a large long term shareholder in Rio Tinto I am celebrating this. Conflicted or what?

 

Worth pointing out again that the "Green" movement is not altogether clued in on where copper/lithium etc actually comes from. Copper is vital for "green" apparatus such as batteries and wiring in these wonderful world saving new technologies like electric cars and wind turbines. Copper is also generally mined in open cast pits on a colossal scale.  An ugly scar on the landscape doesn't even start to describe this trapping of modern green-ness. Subsidies and grants muddy the waters so much that determining which technology between fossil fuels and fashionable modern alternatives is better for the environment is nigh on impossible. 

 

 Best solution. Give Rio Tinto the land, let them mine it dry, then fill in the hole with dirt or water and hand the land back to the Indians. The greens get their batteries and wiring, and the Indians only have some short term inconvenience, and the Rio shareholders get ever larger dividends. Win, win, win.

 

 

How about if someone took your land off you because they wanted was was in it?

 

This will wind up on the courts and be reversed in January.

 

Edited December 7, 20205 yr by Chomper Higgot

Spouting MAGA and selling out resources to an Anglo-Australia corporation. Biblical hypocrisy. 

45 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Best solution. Give Rio Tinto the land, let them mine it dry, then fill in the hole with dirt or water and hand the land back to the Indians.

Where are they expected to carry out their religious or indigenous rituals while their land is being desecrated?

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

As an environmentalist and lover of nature I am appalled by this news. Yet as a large long term shareholder in Rio Tinto I am celebrating this. Conflicted or what?

 

Worth pointing out again that the "Green" movement is not altogether clued in on where copper/lithium etc actually comes from. Copper is vital for "green" apparatus such as batteries and wiring in these wonderful world saving new technologies like electric cars and wind turbines. Copper is also generally mined in open cast pits on a colossal scale.  An ugly scar on the landscape doesn't even start to describe this trapping of modern green-ness. Subsidies and grants muddy the waters so much that determining which technology between fossil fuels and fashionable modern alternatives is better for the environment is nigh on impossible. 

 

 Best solution. Give Rio Tinto the land, let them mine it dry, then fill in the hole with dirt or water and hand the land back to the Indians. The greens get their batteries and wiring, and the Indians only have some short term inconvenience, and the Rio shareholders get ever larger dividends. Win, win, win.

 

 

There is no conflict. RTZ might as well ask to knock down the Vatican because there is ore underneath, it amounts to the same thing

Indian tribes have been exploited/decimated for centuries, land was given/distributed to them to allow them to live their way of life and here they go again, more exploitation, more destruction and more angry people and in the name of Trumps "friendly donors"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/24/trump-mining-arizona-holy-land-oak-flat-tribes

But the Trump administration, in its waning days, has embarked on a rushed effort to transfer ownership of the area to a mining company with ties to the destruction of an Aboriginal site in Australia, the Guardian has learned.

4 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

As an environmentalist and lover of nature I am appalled by this news. Yet as a large long term shareholder in Rio Tinto I am celebrating this. Conflicted or what?

 

Worth pointing out again that the "Green" movement is not altogether clued in on where copper/lithium etc actually comes from. Copper is vital for "green" apparatus such as batteries and wiring in these wonderful world saving new technologies like electric cars and wind turbines. Copper is also generally mined in open cast pits on a colossal scale.  An ugly scar on the landscape doesn't even start to describe this trapping of modern green-ness. Subsidies and grants muddy the waters so much that determining which technology between fossil fuels and fashionable modern alternatives is better for the environment is nigh on impossible. 

 

 Best solution. Give Rio Tinto the land, let them mine it dry, then fill in the hole with dirt or water and hand the land back to the Indians. The greens get their batteries and wiring, and the Indians only have some short term inconvenience, and the Rio shareholders get ever larger dividends. Win, win, win.

 

 

Because if there's one thing we know about mining there are no long term damages?

Off-topic posts and replies removed. 

 

Biden will probably be happy if this gets through before he takes office.

 

Obama signed the bill, but it's Trump who takes the flak, as usual.

 

There must be whole hordes of "journalists" scanning all kinds of regional, local, religious, specialized industry news, etc. for anything they can pin on Trump.

He's on the way out already and pretty old, I wonder who the new media enemy will be.

 

Only one thing matters here: does the "enormous ore deposit" strategically outweigh on a national level the religious sites?

Edited December 7, 20205 yr by tgw

4 hours ago, tgw said:

Only one thing matters here: does the "enormous ore deposit" strategically outweigh on a national level the religious sites?

President Obama clearly thought so. Not sure why Trump is getting all the blame here, does not seem rational.

 

from the OP

"A last-minute addition to a 2014 Pentagon funding bill signed by former President Barack Obama allowed Rio to exchange land it owns near the forest for land above the copper reserve, with the caveat that the swap could not occur until an environmental study was published."

Inflammatory post and reply removed.

 

6 hours ago, tgw said:

Biden will probably be happy if this gets through before he takes office.

 

Obama signed the bill, but it's Trump who takes the flak, as usual.

 

There must be whole hordes of "journalists" scanning all kinds of regional, local, religious, specialized industry news, etc. for anything they can pin on Trump.

He's on the way out already and pretty old, I wonder who the new media enemy will be.

 

Only one thing matters here: does the "enormous ore deposit" strategically outweigh on a national level the religious sites?

Oh I don’t think they have to work hard to pin something on trump he quite good at taking care of that himself this to me is just another broken treaty one of many unfortunately it shouldent be allowed to happen without the permission of the Apache nation possibly a rather large brown envelope or a share in the profits imo no agreement with the Apache nation no mine

I know I’m repeating myself, but the 20th of January can’t come fast enough!!! 

Quote

even though the project would destroy religious and cultural sites sacred to Native Americans.

 

If they were Christian/Jewish sites, this wouldn't be happening.  As a native American Indian, enough with this BS.  It's their land, let them decide.  Up to them!

 

Just another example of how Trump and his cult followers don't really care about minorities or our delicate environment.  Terrible.

9 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

President Obama clearly thought so. Not sure why Trump is getting all the blame here, does not seem rational.

 

from the OP

"A last-minute addition to a 2014 Pentagon funding bill signed by former President Barack Obama allowed Rio to exchange land it owns near the forest for land above the copper reserve, with the caveat that the swap could not occur until an environmental study was published."

 

Not necessarily... It's a time-honored tradition in Congress to attach special interest items/measures to unrelated big-picture bills such as defense spending in order to get something thru that would otherwise be otherwise rejected.

 

Perhaps the better question is... just who sponsored attaching an Indian lands-mining interests land swap measure in Arizona to an apparently entirely unrelated Pentagon funding bill?  Something tells me, it's rather unlikely Obama was behind this one.

 

FWIW, both of Arizona's U.S. Senators at the time were Republicans, Jeff Flake and the late John McCain.

 

 

Edited December 8, 20205 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

11 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

"...A last-minute addition to a 2014 Pentagon funding bill signed by former President Barack Obama allowed Rio to exchange land it owns near the forest for land above the copper reserve..."

Here's something that has always confused me about American funding bills.

The original was for Pentagon funding, full stop. That's the usual manpower training, equipment and weapon buying, food/fuel/clothing etc, etc. How on earth can you add something to it that has nothing to do with the original bill?

 

3 minutes ago, Narratio said:

Here's something that has always confused me about American funding bills.

The original was for Pentagon funding, full stop. That's the usual manpower training, equipment and weapon buying, food/fuel/clothing etc, etc. How on earth can you add something to it that has nothing to do with the original bill?

 

We call it pork barrel politics.  Reform is desperately needed.

Quotes are from the OP:

 

"Tonto National Forest, which abuts the San Carlos reservation." 

 

This is National Forest Land, not Tribal land. No one is taking anything from anyone.                      

 

"The San Carlos Apache Tribe says the mine, if built, would destroy land considered the home of religious deities and sites used for tribal ceremonies"

 

Using something, doesn't make it yours. 

 

The permit process for this sight, was started in 2013.

 

Where do enviromentalists think copper and other metals to make green energy products come from?

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 20205 yr by Shot

15 hours ago, Shot said:

Quotes are from the OP:

 

"Tonto National Forest, which abuts the San Carlos reservation." 

 

This is National Forest Land, not Tribal land. No one is taking anything from anyone.                      

 

"The San Carlos Apache Tribe says the mine, if built, would destroy land considered the home of religious deities and sites used for tribal ceremonies"

 

Using something, doesn't make it yours. 

 

The permit process for this sight, was started in 2013.

 

Where do enviromentalists think copper and other metals to make green energy products come from?

 

 

 

It's public land.  The current administration is fast tracking the mine and bypassing environmental reviews.  Copper mines are horrible with regards to this.  Just look at the destruction old mines have caused.  The public has a right to say what's going to happen with regards to this land.  That hasn't happened.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oakflat-apache/apache-tribe-marches-to-protect-sacred-arizona-site-from-copper-mine-idUSKCN20M1QM

Quote

Nosie, however, disagrees. She said ultimately, the mine will create a 2-mile (3-km) crater destroying Oak Flat and pollute the water supply used by surrounding communities, likely causing an “environmental catastrophe.”

 

These guys don't have a great reputation for respecting our heritage.  Time to respect the rights of those who were there before any of us.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/09/22/rio-tinto-oak-flat/

Quote

Earlier this month, the Anglo-Australian mining conglomerate Rio Tinto announced its chief executive, Jean-Sébastien Jacques, and two other top executives would step down as the company reckons with its decision last May to bulldoze ancient rock shelters in Australia’s Juukan Gorge to gain access to iron ore.

For the Indigenous Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people, the rock shelters were sacred sites. Archaeologists have found evidence of 46,000 years of human presence at the gorge. In June, Rio Tinto issued an apology.

18 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

These guys don't have a great reputation for respecting our heritage.  Time to respect the rights of those who were there before any of us.

That is old fashioned thinking. Progressives in the US want to topple statues and rename roads in an attempt to wipe out the legacy of "those who were there before any of us". Destruction of western history good, destruction of native American and Australian history bad? I don't see enough difference, and for the record I think ALL historical artefacts and monuments should be preserved for future generations who hopefully will no longer be under the PC spell.

On 12/8/2020 at 12:26 AM, tgw said:

Biden will probably be happy if this gets through before he takes office.

 

Obama signed the bill, but it's Trump who takes the flak, as usual.

 

Begs the usual question...why wait four years?

 

Same same for executions.

 

from wiki

 

In December 2014, the United States Congress passed, and President Obama signed the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, which included the provisions of the stalled Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. The Act cleared the way for the land swap in which Resolution would receive 2,422 acres of National Forest land in exchange for deeding to the federal government 5,344 acres of private land. The mine would destroy an area set aside in 1955 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower which is sacred to the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation.

 

 

You'd think Native Americans would be used to the "government" reneging on treaties after 200-ish years?

 

 

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

That is old fashioned thinking. Progressives in the US want to topple statues and rename roads in an attempt to wipe out the legacy of "those who were there before any of us". Destruction of western history good, destruction of native American and Australian history bad? I don't see enough difference, and for the record I think ALL historical artefacts and monuments should be preserved for future generations who hopefully will no longer be under the PC spell.

Progressives?  What's statues and roads got to do with ancient, religious sites?  But yes, this is trying to wipe out the legacy of those who were there before us.  Native American Indians.  They've suffered enough.  Sad you don't seem to understand this.

For many if not all native tribes there is one thing that trumps (pardon the pun) the sacred land and that is the sacred dollar. 

Many native tribes use the cover of religious and sacred land as a bargaining tool.  

My dear, simple people.  Don't be so naive.

On the other hand, Trump and Co. could have rushed this order in favor of Rio Tinto as some kind of political/corporate favor as a message of solidarity for the next election in 2024.

Can't Biden reverse this 21 January with an executive order?

On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2020 at 4:35 PM, TopDeadSenter said:

 Best solution. Give Rio Tinto the land, let them mine it dry, then fill in the hole with dirt or water and hand the land back to the Indians. The greens get their batteries and wiring, and the Indians only have some short term inconvenience, and the Rio shareholders get ever larger dividends. Win, win, win.

 

 

Sacred sites destroyed, where does that come in your win, win, win?

2 minutes ago, J Town said:

Can't Biden reverse this 21 January with an executive order?

 Not really, at least not if he wants a transition away from fossil fuels towards so called renewables(all requiring way more copper) like he said. Open cast mines are a necessary pitfall(excuse the pun) of the green movement. Would you be happier if the copper is mined somewhere away from mainland USA? China or Peru, out of sight, out of mind, or NIMBY'ism as we used to call it. 

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2020 at 8:34 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

That is old fashioned thinking. Progressives in the US want to topple statues and rename roads in an attempt to wipe out the legacy of "those who were there before any of us". Destruction of western history good, destruction of native American and Australian history bad? I don't see enough difference, and for the record I think ALL historical artefacts and monuments should be preserved for future generations who hopefully will no longer be under the PC spell.

The BIG difference is that you ignore the biggest genocide in human history.

A post making a derogatory comment regarding Native American communities has been removed, along with replies to it.