Debbie Coffey Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
_______________________________________________
“Mining at the Mt. Hope Project will involve various types of risks and hazards, including environmental hazards, industrial accidents, metallurgical and other processing problems, unusual or unexpected rock formations, structure cave-in or slides, flooding, fires and interruption due to inclement or hazardous weather conditions.”
______________________________________________
Part 2
Nevada is one of the most seismically active states in the U.S.A., ranking third after California and Alaska. Nevada’s many faults are found at the base of almost every mountain range.
A proposed molybdenum mine at Mt. Hope, near Eureka, Nevada, (owned by General Moly) seems to be located near the Diamond Valley Fault zone, the Western Diamond Mountains Fault zone and the Diamond Mountains Fault zone.
On Feb. 21, 2008, a magnitude 6.0 earthquake shook Wells, Nevada and caused extensive building damage. This earthquake occurred on a previously unmapped fault.
The U.S. National Park Service states “While earthquakes don’t occur at any regular interval, historically the frequency of an earthquake of magnitude 6 or higher has been one every 10 years, and for magnitude 7 or higher, one every 27 years.”
Even the drilling from geothermal projects causes little earthquakes. A magnitude 4.5 was reported at The Geysers in Lake and Sonoma counties in California.
Could an earthquake cause Mt. Hope’s tailings pipeline to rupture, or damage buildings, equipment or the lining of the pit tailing pond?
Eureka Moly (a consolidated subsidiary of General Moly) sent brochures to Eureka residents declaring “A Eureka Moment! Eureka Moly will protect water resources in the region”
How can Eureka Moly promise this?
Even without an earthquake, there are potential problems. In an article titled “False Promises: Water Quality Predictions Gone Wrong: Large Mines and Water Pollution” (Earthworks/MPC 2004) it states that “Water quality impacts from hard rock mines are very difficult to predict. Despite modern technology, government and industry predictions are often wrong, and the long term environmental and fiscal implications are often severe.”
The article gives ten examples, including Rain Gold Mine, near Elko, Nevada, “which has had a serious acid mine drainage problem since 1990, when surface water drainage from the mine’s waste piles began generating acid, contaminating two miles of nearby Dixie Creek. The drainage also contained elevated levels of mercury and arsenic.” Newmont mining, the mine’s owner, supposedly didn’t anticipate an acid mine drainage problem.
Another example is the Thompson Creek Molybdenum Mine in Idaho’s Salmon River Mountains. There were concerns because processed mine waste in the tailings contained pyrite, and earthquakes, landslides, erosion or water system failures could expose pyrite to air and water, causing Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) to form, sending acid and dissolved metals towards the Salmon River. The Forest Service knew there was AMD in 1988, and recommended that the mine needed to address AMD problems in 1989. The revised operating plan to address AMD wasn’t released until 1998. Nine years later.
Earthworks, a non-profit organization protecting communities and the environment from “the destructive impacts of mineral development,” describes acid mine drainage: “At metal mines, the target ore is often rich in sulfide minerals. When the mining process exposes the sulfides to water and air, together they form sulfuric acid. This acid can and does dissolve other harmful metals and metalloids (like arsenic) in the surrounding rock. Acid mine drainage can be released anywhere on the mine where sulfides are exposed to air and water, including waste rock piles, tailings, open pits, underground tunnels and leach pads.”
Also, acid mine drainage “can occur indefinitely – long after mining has ended. Many hardrock mines across the western United States may require water treatment in perpetuity.”
There was inadequate bonding at the Thompson Creek Mine. The mine’s bond was only $19 million, which was low considering the mine’s size and what would be required for reclamation. The bonding didn’t include the cost to construct a water treatment plant(s), or the high cost of water treatment. The bond also didn’t include the cost of rock and soil needed for capping the tailings facility and waste rock dumps. (This alone was estimated at $108 million.)
In General Moly’s 2009 10k form, it states that “Mining is inherently dangerous and subject to conditions or events beyond our control, and any operating hazards could have a material adverse effect on our business” and “Mining at the Mt. Hope Project will involve various types of risks and hazards, including environmental hazards, industrial accidents, metallurgical and other processing problems, unusual or unexpected rock formations, structure cave-in or slides, flooding, fires and interruption due to inclement or hazardous weather conditions.”
Then, more importantly, it is stated that “We may not be able to obtain insurance to cover these risks at economically feasible premiums and some types of insurance may be unavailable or too expensive to maintain.”
If they balk at the insurance being too expensive, what will they do about paying to fix any problems? They also state they could “suffer a material adverse effect on our business and the value of our securities may decline if we incur losses related to any significant events that are not covered by our insurance policies.”
This isn’t the only thing General Moly seems to balk at. General Moly hasn’t even granted the simple requests of local farmers and ranchers for 1 foot and 5 foot water drawdown maps. This wouldn’t cost much or take long. General Moly representatives claim that the Bureau of Land Management instructed them to ONLY do a 10 foot water drawdown map. Why would the BLM do that if they’re acting in the best interests of the American people? It seems that the BLM and General Moly are not doing 1 foot or 5 foot water drawdown maps because these maps will show a greater area of impact. These maps are important because even a 1 foot water drawdown could dry up streams.
General Moly’s 2009 10k form also states that surface rights on the Mt. Hope mining project “include BLM open range grazing rights and stock water rights.” This is OUR land and OUR water. What about other mines near other earth quake fault lines in other states? The Nevada Bureau of Land Management and General Moly seem to be gambling with our future.
SOURCES:
http://www.nps.gov/grba/naturescience/faults.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8494
“False Promises: Water Quality Predictions Gone Wrong – Large Mines and Water Pollution” http://www.bristolbayalliance.com/mines_and_water.html
http://www.earthworksaction.org/amd.cfm
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqscanv/FaultMaps/116-40.html
http://www.wildwhiteclouds.org/news_mining_ThompsonCreek.html
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090627/ARTICLES/906279915/1350
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/14/nevada-gaining-in-development-of-geothermal-energy
Eureka Moly brochure: “Mt. Hope Mine: Nevada’s Eureka moment!”
The PPJ Gazette 
Flashback: Chinese government money is buying one of U.S.A.’s biggest mines (Parts I, 2, 3) | mediachecker
May 11, 2014 @ 00:38:24
Jan 08, 2013 @ 02:46:49
Esteban, I contacted Dave and offered to go on a tour of his mine and talk with him more so your words of “Thankfully for poor Dave, he finally realized Debbie was not interested in dialogue or getting to the other side of this story” are both untrue and ill-informed.
You are obviously work in the mining industry, or you’re a PR person working for a mining company, Or a co-worker of Dave (or the BLM). I don’t see any links with science -based information supporting your statements and opinion.
LikeLike
Nov 09, 2011 @ 12:32:18
No one is wanting to restrict mining for arbitrary reasons. What Debbie is objecting to is the behind the scenes manipulation not only of data regarding the mining and its affects, but of who is really doing the mining.
While we all realize that everything we do has an impact, that is not a valid excuse for the continued exploitation of the environment and water supplies as a means of increasing profits.
As for refusing to engage with Dave in a conversation, I personally facilitated the exchange of contact info for Debbie and Dave.
I personally don’t buy into the excuses you give no matter how how nice sounding, for why these companies should be able to devastate the areas they occupy, simply because everything has an impact anyway so mining should be able to operate at full bore with no consideration for how things might have been done better.
Marti
LikeLike
Nov 08, 2011 @ 20:55:48
Of course mining creates an impact. There is nothing humans do that does not create an impact. To restrict all human activity to that which does not require an environmental impact is nonsense. Debbie, you say, “of course we all know things have to be mined”; however, you expressly reject this premise with every sentence. Mining has impacts. Building a power plant has impacts. Expanding a city has impacts.
This is clearly very biased and underinformed reporting. The facts aren’t wrong, but they are pulled out of context and twisted.
The question (always) for society is “Are the benefits of any economic activity significantly greater than the fully mitigated impacts.” The problem with this kind of “investigative reporting” is that there is no recognition of the benefits and no real attempt to balance the importance of natural resource utilization with the detrimental effects.
Today’s mining is highly regulated, highly mitigated, and very safe. There will undoubtedly be problems associated with mining, and those should never be glossed over or ignored. Each project must be vetted and poked at to improve its viability as a legitimate use of our natural resources. This opinion piece (not reporting) gets a good number of issues out there for debated. Debbie is, however, completely unwilling to listen to anything Dave has to say…choosing instead to rebut each point and do so using very biased “facts”. TRI is a joke. If sand and gravel companies (these are mines, remember) had to report TRI like hard rock mining does, Nevada would find itself back down around #40 or so on the EPA’s list of polluters. It is an absolute accounting gimmick, based not at all on geoscience or risk.
I commend you for tackling this subject and bringing many thoughts to light. I would encourage your readers to sift through the very legitimate issues you bring up and consider what the real truth might be. If we continue to fight against all projects that utilize our natural resources, we will find ourselves accelerating our economic demise (which if you read the papers you might note is already well under way). At the end of the day, the true wealth of our nation lies in the wise utilization of our natural resources. Reducing the risk of cancer from 1 in a million to 1 in a billion, for instance, for anything comes at a cost. We have to decide what cost these kinds of protections are worth. That is a fundamental truth here.
Thankfully for poor Dave, he finally realized Debbie was not interested in dialogue or getting to the other side of this story. Just wanted to shut Dave down and be comfortable in the warm fuzzy truth that mining is always and will always be evil and detestable!
Cheers,
Scfam
LikeLike
Is the U.N. stealing control of our water (and Republic) right out from under us? « Marions space
Jul 07, 2011 @ 15:11:12
Jul 04, 2011 @ 18:47:58
Jul 04, 2011 @ 15:06:14
May 23, 2011 @ 19:42:53
Davie, thank you for sending your contact information to Marti. I will contact you. In my opinion, there is less water after mining, and from what I see, mining leaves a permanent impact. I am fair and willing to hear to your opinion.
LikeLike
May 23, 2011 @ 17:57:53
Debbie,
Again Debbie – 432 million tons of non-mineralized or weakly mineralized TOTAL material – including mostly (95 % mineral free) quartz, Silica, monzonite, rhyolite, etc. – the volumes are overstated because of the major component of the host rock (largely identified above) needs by EPA regulations to be reported also.
Contact Info was sent to Marti – Send me an e-mail when you have the opportunity then perhaps follw-up with a call afterwards
LikeLike
May 13, 2011 @ 03:26:29
hi again Dave, It seems to me that 432 million pounds of “overburden” (in just one year) is a lot of stuff, and even if it’s just moved to another location, how can this not have an impact? Apparently, you aren’t happy with the EPA’s definition, either. There must be a reason they’re not letting you rewrite it.
I offered to tour your mine to be fair to you and your company.
If you would like to send your contact info to Marti at the PPJ, I will ask her to only share it with me.
LikeLike
May 12, 2011 @ 21:48:36
Debbie so who may I ask will see my contact info at PPJ – if only you – gladly will send it – As mentioned I do not wish to be or have my company bombarded
LikeLike
May 12, 2011 @ 21:32:11
Dear Debbie,
The information that is reported by the EPA known as TRI or Toxic Release Inventory is based upon the amount of mateial that is moved – when the overburden material is removed to expose the ore underneath the overburden contains minerals that are sub-economic to recover, so as part of the”manufacturing” process described by the EPA – the overburden is counted as TRI generated material when in reality it is only moved from atop the ore to an adjacent location – the overburden has not been modified, changed, altered in any manner -it has only been relocated -,
However the EPA requires mining companies to report it (the overburden) as something the mine has manufactured, while the mining companies may not necessarily agree with the point of view by the EPA as nothing has been manufactured – The companies still comply with the stipulation.
Debbie, I am very aware of the TRI inventory and reporting – we go through the process once a year – and again the effort for mining companies to compile the data – track the data and report the data is exhaustive – again only in an effort to comply with the agencies while perhaps having a different point of view. And I am Very aware of MSHA, and all of the federal, state and local agencies we work with on a daily basis — going back to the TRI reporting for a moment – the material that is transferred from covering the ore deposits (overburden) is the perceived amount of Newmont, Barrick, and Kennecott are supposed to be what has been released as toxic release – when in fact nothing has been released – once again it is in the natural state in which it was formed, once again only transferred.
A tour huh??? geez we hardly know each other!!!! however it is not out of the question and I am not trying to “hide anything” as you attempt to make that appear – i just do not want myself or my company to be assaulted – as you know I am quite new to the blog and stepping out of my comfort zone and into yours, so i suppose a basis of trust needs to be established – I am and remain proud of our efforts – if the dialogue continues perhaps we will do a tour – there is nothing to hide and likely plenty to learn – if that can be the case for a tour that you are seeking to learn and not seeking to find something bad
LikeLike
May 12, 2011 @ 20:31:21
P.S. Dave, if you’d like to send your contact information to PPJ, maybe you’d like to arrange a tour of your mine for me.
LikeLike
May 12, 2011 @ 20:23:33
Hi Dave, since you think the information I posted is “biased” here are some Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (this is a government agency) statistics regarding Nevada:
In 2002, 98 percent of the total reported toxic emissions in Nevada — 432 million pounds — came from mining, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxics Release Inventory.
Nevada ranked 2nd among the 50 states in total reported toxic emissions for 2002, the most recent year for which data is available.
Four of the U.S. mining facilities with the highest reported toxic emissions are in Nevada:
1. Newmont Mining Corporation’s Twin Creeks Mine (2nd highest emissions)
2. Barrick Goldstrike Mine (4th highest)
3. Newmont Mining Corporation’s Lone Tree Mine (5th highest)
4. Newmont Mining Corporation’s Carlin South Area (6th highest)
Doing a simple google search, I see many examples in recent years of problems with toxic emissions. Sure, I could list them, but since you live in NV and have kids and grandkids here, you should take the time to look.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/8891077.html
I put my full name on my articles. I list my sources. Dave, you only give your first name, don’t say what type of work you do in mining, and won’t give the name of the mine you work at, which I find curious. If you’re proud of the work your mine does and it’s safety record, seems like you wouldn’t be hesitant at all to name this mine. Dave, I appreciate any and all efforts your mine (whatever it is) makes to mine safely.
LikeLike
May 12, 2011 @ 18:49:19
Hi Debbie,
Most of the sources cited in your response are, I will say biased in opposition to mining projects (the mineral policy center for example has been to several public scoping meetings (that I too have attended), held by the BLM for public comment and in complete oppostion of each and every project scoping meeting they were present at) – I do enjoy the dialogue here, I recognize that i am in the “Lions Den” haha, and hope to at the very least, let people know that we are, as todays mining industry – indeed responsible and proactive in our endeavor to protect while producing. Again – I can’t say that entirely for the industry into the early 1980’s.
The many mines I have worked at have all closed old mine workings and have reclaimed them when they are located.
Please recognize that the “estimate” that is published by the agencies (MSHA)is only that – “an estimate” – that going out in the field and and finding old workings from 100 years ago or so, is time consuming and very problematic with over-growth and ground conditions. To close all of the old mines may neve happen because many of them were never mapped or located, and simply cannot be found. Many operations are actually reclaiming old workings (from long ago) and sites and improving the environmental conditions for them.
To make it sound today like we are intentionally spewing out toxic water and poisoning the earth is plain wrong and far from the truth – again the extent and effort that is put forth to be environmentally compliant and responsible is astounding, in todays world at the mine I work at, which the identity of is not important – there are ten water treatment plant operators all state licensed and a foreman, there is also a staff of seven environmental specialists monitoring the site, collecting samples and providing direction for the permitting and compliance regulations we have to operate within.
20 or perhaps even 15 years ago, these staff counts would have been a third or a quarter of what we employ today.
Interesting that you refer to MSHA’s Coal mining statistics, and do not mention the metal/non-metal statistics which are vastly better than coal. Coal mining due to the soft slippery nature of the coal itself makes coal mining inherently much more dangerous, and combined with the coal dust etc. making coal mining much more difficult.
As mentioned Debbie – and finally, I observe that you do not address the fact that this is my back-yard and do not wish to live in the conditions to which is being portrayed.
My family has lived here for four generations, my children and grand-children are being raised here – that is the most compelling reasoning of all, I watch the science and results on a daily basis and have done so for 35 years in the industry, my father and mother (both in their mid 80’s)
also were employed in the industry and have lived full healthy lives and my grandparents as well.
Please recognize that one simple fact, we do not want to live in a toxic waste land no more than you do.
The technology does exist to produce while protecting, and it is being utilized so that we can continue with the lifestyles we have all become used to – I think it is far to fantastic for you to even imagine a world with out the product that are produced from mines – heck we wouldn’t even be having this dialogue!!!
LikeLike
May 12, 2011 @ 02:51:40
Dear Dave, thanks for sharing your thoughts, but you seem to be the one who is misinformed.
Regarding abandoned mines, according the BLM:
With an estimated 300,000 abandoned mine lands (AML) features, of which 50,000 pose significant risks to human safety, Nevada leads the west in number of AML challenges to remediate.
http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/minerals/abandoned_mine_lands.html
Regarding water quality and reclamation, according to 2006 research by Earthworksaction.org:
New scientific research unveiled today finds that faulty water quality predictions, mitigation measures and regulatory failures result in the approval of mines that create significant water pollution problems. Despite assurances from government regulators and mine proponents that mines would not pollute clean water, researchers found that 76 percent of studied mines exceeded water quality standards, polluting rivers, and groundwater with toxic contaminants, such as lead, mercury, arsenic and cyanide, and exposing taxpayers to huge cleanup liabilities. The release was issued by the Washington, DC-based conservation group EARTHWORKS and conservation groups in as many as ten western states affected by mining. http://www.earthworksaction.org/PR_KuipersMaest.cfm
According to the Mineral Policy Center, damaging effluents from mines have polluted more than 12,000 miles of American rivers and streams and 180,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs, destroying drinking water supplies and crucial wildlife habitat and presenting a burgeoning threat to already overtaxed underground aquifers. Surging energy markets magnify these threats as the pressure to increase uranium exploration and mining mounts throughout the West. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/mining/index.html
Regarding mining and sinkholes:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/feb/22/more-sink-holes-open-mining-scarred-kansas-communi/
http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DMR3/sinkholes.shtml
http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Pollution/Phosphate-Industry/Sinkholes-and-Stacks-Neighbors-claim-Florida-s-Phosphate-Mines-are-a-Hazard
Regarding MSHA inspections, I hope they’ve improved. According to an article by Donna Jablonski, Nov. 19, 2007: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) failed to perform required inspections at 107 of the nation’s 731 underground coal mines in Fiscal Year 2006, according to a report issued Nov. 16 by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of ithe Inspector General (OIG). MSHA also “misstated” the number of inspections it completed, the report finds. The reason? “Decreasing inspection resources” and “management did not place adequate emphasis on ensuring the inspections were completed and the reported completion rate was accurate.” Furthermore, management didn’t require inspectors to document “all critical inspection activities”—so even where inspections were performed, they were not all thorough. At Utah’s Crandall Canyon Mine, where six miners were trapped and three rescue workers killed in August, the OIG found “significant inspection and supervisory deficiencies” in three of seven required inspections—including records of one inspection that were dated four months before the inspection took place.
http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/11/19/mine-agency-skipped-safety-inspections-senate-panel-subpoenas-crandall-canyon-ceo/
I’m very relieved to hear that you are making efforts to mine responsibly, and that your mine was inspected recently (you didn’t mention the name of your mine).
LikeLike
May 11, 2011 @ 17:24:28
Hmmm… seems to be some mis-information being spread here – when water quality is an issue it is federally (EPA) required that mines that operate water treatment plants which actually improve the water quality discharged the mine site – Also – there are federal, state and local agencies who conduct quite frequent and regular inspections – DAILY water samples are typically sent to third party outside labs to monitor water quality (pH, sulfates, TDS, and so forth) to monitor water quality.
As far as the permitting process for a mine, it can take years to get a mine permitted and demonstrate the best management practices that will be used to protect while producing.
Not aware of any wildlife being slaughtered – the department of wild life is brought in at the very earliest of stages in a project to ensure that migratory routes are not disrupted and protected, this is part of the manadatory, regulatory federal permitting process – and for devastation of the land, reclamation bonds of up to tens of millions of dollars are paid UP FRONT by companies to ensure that the land will not be left “devastated –
as a side note – Nevada which is by far the most active mining state in the Nation has in its entire history has less than 1/10th of 1 percent of its entire acerage impacted by mining operations.
So without having the knowledge of what it really takes to permit a mine – the effort, the time the studies, the up-front costs and the level of work involved it is un-wise to speculate about modern mining operations.
I cannot say that effort was applied historically, environmental impact was not a consideration – socio/economic studies were unheard of and migratory routes or mating habits of mule deer and or Elk and the like were not a consideration.
However these times are different – all of the above are huge considerations and all part of the federally required permitting process and a “license to operate”
I have lived in mining communities throughout the west my entire life and obviously am a mining professional and have never observed a “sink hole” from any operation.
All mining companies are closing abandoned mines on their properties across the nation, and MSHA is promoting its “stay out stay alive ” campaign along with other federal branches to assist companies in closure of old mines
I believe I have stated the most obvious fact, which is I Live In The West – do you really think that I or any of my colleagues would wish to live in the conditions which you describe – hardly!
I too love and enjoy the mountains and the streams and the fresh air along with my associates and do not in any way shape or form desire to damage the environment in which I LIVE!!
At the mine at which I currently am employed – we had the agencies (federal, state and local) on site last week inspecting our facilities ( we have seven – yes – 7 – water treatment plants on-site) and we have bi -weekly inspections – I am glad for that, it demonstrates that we mine responsibly and with care – producing while protecting is our theme!!
So my request is – please have your facts “not your story” straight before you spread mis-information
LikeLike
May 10, 2011 @ 20:58:07
Yes we all know we need metals and that is why we mine. We all know how dependent we are on metals.
but why does the extraction of metals, minerals, oil and gas have to also contaminate priceless water supplies? Why does all the wildlife have to be slaughtered? Why does the environment have to be devastated and rendered useless?
With sink holes appearing spontaneously all over the Western states as a result of the 550,000 abandoned mines and devastation caused by relentless and irresponsible mining practices, I would think it would be time to revisit what we think we need as opposed to what we really need.
Maybe if a huge sinkhole swallows up your house or methane gas from fracking bubbles up and wipes out an entire school, or maybe if YOU turn on your tap and watch it explode into flames …maybe then you’ll understand that the blindness is not so much on the part of those trying to slow this crap down.
LikeLike
May 10, 2011 @ 20:26:57
Geez – I am still amazed at how blinded people have become – As I mentioned earlier – lets take away everything that was ever produced by mining – all steel for nails to builds houses and saws to cut wood, axes, copper for plumbing and the wiring in your house, car and computer – that spiffy new watch you are wearing, that cool new car that you are driving around, the needle that sewed your clothes together, – – everything – gone, what would you do?
These products are what mines provide for us – without the metal production you cannot even shave without that metal razor blade.
So indeed today we hve the technology to keep producing the raw materials that provide us the basic functions of life and keep our environment safe.
As I once heard unles you riding around on a horse (with no bit in its bridle – oh yeah thats metal too) wearing furs don’t skin them with steel knives though) and living with trees as your only shelter – – you are frankly a hypocrite!!!!
Sorry Folks we need to keep mining or we will not survive…
LikeLike
May 04, 2011 @ 16:37:14
May 04, 2011 @ 12:23:17
May 03, 2011 @ 18:36:58
Open Question: outfits with these boots pleasee?
Mar 09, 2011 @ 07:24:33
Jan 08, 2011 @ 17:20:45
Excellent article. Mining can and has caused devastation to the ecosystems where it is done, and this can last for centuries, even thousands of years. The open pit, heap leech process has very toxic effects. Large tailings can continue to leech nitrous and sulfuric acids for centuries into the future poisoning the ecosystem. And these big pits disrupt natural underground streams that may be hundreds even thousands of years old. — So, as a wild horse advocate, I ask: what is the big beef about the very underpopulated herds of wild horses and burros, whose droppings actually help build soils and water tables?
LikeLike
Jan 05, 2011 @ 18:08:49
I am sure that this is only one of many similar “screwing’s” that are being perpetrated on the public and our “Public Land and Resources” but this surely needs to be “Exposed” to as many concerned citizens as possible.
An those that aren’t concerned, should ask themselves, “what have I done for the future citizens of our country” or maybe better yet, “against them”..
LikeLike
Jan 03, 2011 @ 22:07:08
“This is OUR land and OUR water.”
A little confused on your understanding of the concept of property rights, aren’t you?!
If you want to rail against one fiction (corporations, governments, etc.) then it would be best for credibility if you railed against all fictions. It’s kinda tacky when you pick and choose and then rail against others when THEY pick and choose.
This land has been stolen fair and square.
LikeLike