Appeals Court RE: Uranium mining near Grand Canyon
The following came from 'Mining'... Please verify the tenor of the ruling. It would seem to be favorable to the Northern Pipes Super Project prospects. More information should be forthcoming.
"A federal appeals court upheld on Monday the government's decision to allow a uranium mine near the Grand Canyon National Park to resume operation.
Cronkite News reports that the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that no environmental protection laws had been violated by the Bureau of Land Management when it permitted the Arizona 1 mine to resume operation in 2009 followed a 17-year production hiatus.
Alan Gardner, co-chairman of the Arizona-Utah Local Economic Coalition, hailed the decision as advanced the interests of both the local economy and the nation as a whole.
"It's exactly what should be done," said Gardner. "The country needs the uranium."
Conservation groups claim, however, that the federal appeals court has set a dangerous precedent which will permit "zombie mines" to operate under redundant environmental regulations without proper oversight by the authorities.
"They are basically zombie mines that will live perpetually without ever being subject to new environmental reviews," says Taylor McKinnon, wildlands campaigns director with the Center for Biological Diversity."
Regardless of whether this is favorable to LBSR's claims or not does not matter. These claims will never be exploited for their potential. Look at LBSR's claims in Alaska - they hold (held) all the potential in the world, even had a potential JV partner and look how managment royally screwed that up. Now LBSR has less than half the original claims.
The company is in a downward spiral with no money and a lawsuit. The potential will never be exploited. All you have to do is look at the history of this company and see that they have done absolutely nothing in the last decade.
I don't think this case relates to LBSR. The issue was whether or not the present owners of the mine required new permits for mining following multiple changes of ownership and inactivity over 15 years,
It is interesting to note, however, that the very liberal 9th Circuit Court Court ruled in favor of mining interests.
In terms of bans on new mining in the Arizona Strip, LBSRs claims are grandfathered.
With all due respect, LBSR has claim(s) '1000 ft' away from the particular mine in question, according to IR. By inference this holding is important in the recognizing the necessity of intelligent development of those resources. I would also posit that Alaska is promoting mining interests in some locales, eg. UURAF. IR has posted the Appeals information on Facebook and Twitter.