Kennecott eyes land in canyon

It intends to search for minerals in Yellow Fork

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Kirk Rentmeister
    Sept. 22, 2008 8:47 a.m.

    Kennecott has every right to develope the mineral. Your mayor has the right to fight them in court but he will loose and waste the tax payers money but that is what most uninformed polititions do. If the county was so concerned they should have filed claims on it. I for one am thankful for Kennecott they have pumped Billions of dollar in to Utah's Ecconomy and provided some of the highest paying jobs in the state for over 100 years. They provide products that are desperately needed by this contry and the world. There is more case law on this subject (Stock Raising Homested and mineral developement) Sujest the mayor read some of it and find out how off base he is.

    As for damages ceated by Kennocott it is true that water quality has been effected by the mining. But please do not forget that there was a govener of this fine state that was willing to make a deal for less than one percent of the actual cost to deal with this problem.

    Everyone likes the products that mining produces but no one wants the mine in there back yard.

  • Matthew
    Sept. 19, 2008 10:29 p.m.

    Everyone needs to know that the US still operates under outdated 19th century laws that hand public wealth over to narrow private interests at additional costs to health and the environment that we now understand better than two centuries ago.
    Get congress to change those laws!

  • badwater
    Sept. 19, 2008 4:36 p.m.

    Water, copper, iron, etc are all resources that people use. Many gain employment by the development and use of these resources. I have never heard that copper is a requirement for life (trace amounts maybe for humans). However; water is a requirement for all life! Nobody got excited about finding iron on Mars, but water, well ...
    Kennecott is well aware of the damage to the ground water that their leaching and other mining practices have caused. They paid for the study. I too like having a job and my father worked for Kennecott and our family reaped the benefits of that employment. But, the impact on the large amount of good, clean, drinkable ground water that mining in Yellow Canyon could have needs to be evaluated. Would you prefer that we just roll the dice and take our chances? I don't and I don't believe that Kennecott does either. Maybe a study has already been done or Kennecott can modify their mining practices? I would like to know.
    Finally, lets just discuss the pros and cons and have a reasonable discussion. I never called Kennecott evil, those where your words Geologist. Where did you come up with that?

  • WHY NOT??
    Sept. 19, 2008 4:32 p.m.

    Be done with it and strip mine the entire state??

  • Pollution
    Sept. 19, 2008 3:49 p.m.

    The Thousands and Thousands of us that enjoy that nice breeze coming through Rose/Herriman Canyon will absolutely, positively be subject to down wind particle polution from Kennecott. The nice clear breeze WILL BE replaced with particulate matter in the air. I can't believe anybody other than greedy Kennecott would let this happen. This will affect the oldest of residents to our little babies for years and years!!!

  • Geologist
    Sept. 19, 2008 2:40 p.m.

    Everyone complains about mining, but Kennecott produces materials that you use everyday. They even produce materials that are used in the computer you used to post a comment about how evil Kennecott is for mining!

  • I like it
    Sept. 19, 2008 2:36 p.m.

    Personally I'd rather have people with jobs and food on their families tables than pretty mountains. I hope it works out and more people are employed.

  • Farm Boy
    Sept. 19, 2008 10:56 a.m.

    Writing a headline so that it is informative and unambiguous is an inexact art. My first thought on reading "Kennecott eyes land in canyon" was "Whose eyes landed in the canyon, and how did they get knocked out in the first place?"
    Reminds me of the joke, "She rolled her eyes at me ... so I picked them up and rolled them right back."

  • DR Don
    Sept. 19, 2008 10:30 a.m.

    If people don't like the laws under which Kennecott and other mining companies legally operate, they should do everything they can to have the laws changed. Complaining to each other online won't accomplish a darned thing other than giving them the illusion they're doing something!

  • Ralph
    Sept. 19, 2008 10:17 a.m.

    I don't work for Kennecott but I'm in favor of people having jobs and America having industry. You can't continue to be an advanced society and great country by following the recommendations of environmentalists. If we don't harvest minerals in our country and create jobs, then others like China will and they don't have the environmental conscience and laws that we do.

  • badwater
    Sept. 19, 2008 9:23 a.m.

    The communities in the SW corner of the valley have had multiple wells poisoned by Kennecotts previous practices. There is a large fault around Butterfield canyon that has isolated this water damage to north of the fault. Do we really want to jeopardize the water quality south of the fault by allowing mining in Yellow Fork canyon?

  • Sneaky Jimmy
    Sept. 19, 2008 8:29 a.m.

    Once again Utah doesn't know what they have. Why would they allow a mining company to "rape" the canyons. In 50 years people will lament this day.

  • kathyn
    Sept. 19, 2008 8:22 a.m.

    Kennecott Copper has already stripped the Oquirrh mountains on the west of the valley until they're ghastly to look upon. They have removed actual mountains already and leave dead dirt for us to see.

    I have often wondered where the Sierra Club is or some other environmental group. Why haven't we seen large protests against what is happening to the landscape?

    The Oquirrh mountains were beautiful and they have been destroyed by ugliness. Do our officials turn a blind eye because of the money Kennecott pours into the county?

  • Development
    Sept. 19, 2008 8:15 a.m.

    If we're crying over Kennecott doing what they do, and doing it legally, then why are we not crying over the heavy population growth in that part of the valley? Why am I not crying that it now costs $6 for a 3-day use permit in AF Canyon? Because I realize that growth means that I just need to go further away to experience the same solitude that existed in the depressed 1980s Utah. So get a clue and go a little further away to find that solitude, it certainly exists somewhere.

  • Dave
    Sept. 19, 2008 7:58 a.m.

    The posters have good points but Kennecott knows what it is doing, you cannot buy mineral rights you can only mine them. The law would have to be changed by congress to stop Kennecott.

  • Mike R.
    Sept. 19, 2008 7:35 a.m.

    Go to the top of Butterfield Canyon where the road goes down into Tooele. The view from there is incredible as well as at the mine overlook. The untouched land to the south of Butterfield is some of the most spectaular in the state and close to residents of Salt Lake and Tooele. Kennecott ought to keep it that way.

    Why didn't the County buy the mineral rights when they bought the land?

  • Bob G
    Sept. 19, 2008 4:52 a.m.

    Yes, Kennecott is getting too greedy. They have somehow accuired the complete northern range of the Oquires and closed off many canyons that were once open for public use. The canyons and old cities on the west sides have been gobbled up by kennecot and no longer accesible for public use. Citizens have more right to public land as does kennecot to file claims on land they are not even mining. Citizens are all but shut out of any canyons and camping that once existed in Parleys canyon and the Oquirrhs is the last place to go picknicing or camping. Or does kennecott have other plans for these canyons, like developement and other uses besides mining? They have been considering selling and developing land along the bingham highway but this should not happen. If they acquired land for mining and don't wish to mine it anymore the land should be given back to the BLM, not cities or counties, as public land. Mineral rights does not give them developement rights as owners of the land they leased from the BLM. This should hold true for any land the BLM has leased for mining and/or mineral removal or oil wells.

  • wick
    Sept. 19, 2008 2:21 a.m.

    Why not? Either a mining op. or a wall mart. It would be a subdivision anyway!!