Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Bokan Mountain/Dotson Ridge Project (Rare earth elements)

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    6

    Default Bokan Mountain/Dotson Ridge Project (Rare earth elements)

    I've been reading with interest about the Pebble Mine Project, appreciating both viewpoints. I'm still on the undecided side, I guess. I'm all for creating jobs, but responsibly. Below are excerpts copied and pasted, with sources given credit. I'm just curious to hear what people on this forum feel about this mining project. The existing mess is still residue from a previous mining venture and hopefully, if Ucore proceeds with their venture, they are more responsible and bring real jobs to Alaska.

    The project is located on Prince of Wales Island, near Ketchikan.

    The Dotson Ridge project encompasses two separate rare earth ore bodies called the Dotson trend and the Sunday trend, located a few miles away from the historical Ross Adams mine and outside the area being examined for reclamation.

    Rare earth elements (such as yttrium, lanthanum, and terbium) are used in a wide range of applications including many cutting edge military and green technologies. China currently controls more than 95% of world production and there has therefore been a resurgence of interest in establishing a domestic supply. The rare earth deposits at Dotson Ridge are of particular interest because they contain an unusually high ratio of profitable to less profitable elements. These include dysprosium which is used in high temperature magnet production in applications such as electric cars.
    Bokan Mountain Project (Uranium)

    In 2007, a company called Ucore Uranium Inc. (now Ucore Rare Metals) began exploration of the old mine and surrounding area. In 2009, Ucore divided the project into the Bokan Mountain Uranium Project and the Dotson Ridge Rare Earth Project and created Rare Earth One LLC to manage the projects. The company has not announced any exploration for uranium at the Bokan Mountain site since 2008, and appears to be focusing exclusively on rare earths nearby. The price of uranium ore is volatile, but has trended upwards over the last decade. Ucore has not reported results of its preliminary observations or future plans for exploitation of the site, but re-examination of this resource is always possible, particularly if there is continued interest in a resurgence of nuclear power.

    Source: http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/I...#ixzz2UbYGlnD7

    Bokan Mountain is the site of the closed and contaminated Ross-Adams Uranium mine. The Ross-Adams mine drains into Kendrick Creek and Kendrick Bay, as would any future mines at Bokan mountain. A 2004 US Forest Service study found lead, arsenic and radioactive isotopes 3 to 4 times the background levels in Kendrick Creek and nearby tidal flats of Kendrick Bay. This poses a risk to the commercial fishing and subsistence fish and shellfish gathering in Kendrick Bay. Kendrick Creek and Bay are on the Alaska Impaired Waters List.

    Source: http://akmininginfo.org/issues/bokan-mountain/

    Ucore stock (UURAF) is currently tanking, but when the moratorium on mining ends eventually, this could be something to be invested in.

    I'm just curious to hear what others think about this mining project, but I'm hoping this discussion doesn't become as hot as the Pebble discussion has. I know we all have our opinions, but please, let's tread lightly? Thank you.

  2. #2
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Wow! Almost 100 looks and nobody has an opinion? I have to ask, has anyone ever heard of this project? I'm just trying to find out if most Alaskans are just anti-development or objective in supporting good projects if they are managed right. I understand the controversy surrounding the Pebble project. Just wondering what anyone thinks about this. I think I've objectively posted links supported both perspectives on the issue, so.......does anyone have a viewpoint to offer me, please? Are Alaskans, in general, for resource development/jobs or against it/save the environment. I do believe, if done right, both can be accomplished.

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Lightbulb

    Rare Earth is the future of mining in Alaska.


    There will always be those who object ideologically to development of any sort, but in the end, as with the pipeline, human need will trump all.

  4. #4
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    The stuff they will mine just brings more tec waste. The material will be shipped to China so they can make the product needed. China already has the material so mine profit will be little plus the waste of fossil fuel shipping to China. JMOFO
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo Will View Post
    The stuff they will mine just brings more tec waste. The material will be shipped to China so they can make the product needed. China already has the material so mine profit will be little plus the waste of fossil fuel shipping to China. JMOFO

    Will, from what I hear, this is a matter of survival, so to speak. China is supposedly sitting on its supplies of Rare Earth, leaving us with no option except to develop our own domestic sources of supply.


    Check it out here:


    China's Continuing Monopoly Over Rare Earth Minerals

    http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2013/04/02/chinas-continuing-monopoly-over-rare-earth-minerals

  6. #6
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default

    I personally would support it if it can be done properly with the right mine plan and plenty of reclamation bonds in place if the worst case scenario happens.
    I believe modern mining can be done enviromentally friendly. We just need to monitor them to be sure they do it right and stick to the plan they made where they agree to do so.
    We can criticize mining and oil development all day long while we fill our cars with gas and oil. Even electric cars need material from mining.
    If it can't be grown it must be mined right? We just need to make sure it is done responsibly. We have the ability now days to do it right and verify they are doing it that way.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  7. #7
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Thank you! Glad to see discussion on this. Most mining projects are just about gold/money, but this is more about independence from China and possibly creating a new industry or export for the whole world. China is hoarding about 95% (I think) of the world's developed resources of REE's. We have the ability to steal their thunder on this issue.

    On the flip side, even though this project is so important to our independence from China, it is just as important that it be done properly, environmentally speaking. That is what I'm asking here. Do people on this forum believe it is possible to pursue this and have it done responsibly? And, is it worth the risks.

    If yes, how to pursue holding the operators to their responsibilities to the environment? The EPA? Surely not! An independent Alaskan EPA, which would be, literally, "right next door" in Juneau and able to watch the day to day operations?

    Again, thank you all for your input.

  8. #8
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,886

    Default

    One way to hold them accountable is reclamation bonds. Basically that is money paid up front and set aside that they only get back upon successfull reclamation of the site when the mine is closed.The money cannot be used for anything else.
    If they go bankrupt or for whatever reason leave a problem behind the Gov't can use that money to clean it up and make things right( as much as possible anway).
    If the bond is high enough they would want to do good to get their money back.
    I'm not talking about a million or so but more like tens of millions of dollars or even 100 million or more.
    If they can't raise the bond money then they can't open the mine period!
    Goverment oversite can be good and I agree Alaska DEC might be better than the federal EPA.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  9. #9
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    Look at Afghanistan and its REE. Our men and women are dieing there and we have millions of dollars going there. A few years ago China signed a deal with them to mine all of their REE once we pull out.We could of gotten the REE ourselfs but let China have them after we did the work.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/we-r...ts-afghanistan
    Now left only to be a turd in the forrest and the circle will be complete.Use me as I have used you

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •