Opinions on this page do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Webmaster or of this Website unless so stated. The Webmaster will publish all submitted opinions for a maximum 30 day period, whether he agrees with them or not. Inflammatory remarks and swear words are forbidden and will not be published. Submissions may be made on disk in Word.doc format or via email to the Webmaster. Submissions MUST include valid name and address; if you do not want your name and address published with the opinion, please state so at the beginning of the submission.
One new addition to the many other warnings posted at the main gate is the yellow and red "Rad" sign. The old Administration building is situated to the left of this gate, out of sight. The structures in the background and beyond constitute the old process areas, and the truck-wash was located out of sight and to the right. These areas have recently been determined to contain levels of radioactivity high enough to require protective measures on the part of those who will be working in the areas during the cleanup and remediation phases.
(Photo by Robert A. Boyce Sr, January 2005)
Opinion:BP/ARCO HAS NO ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
Anyone who thinks that BP is getting unfairly criticized for the Gulf Oil disaster has not done their homework. Anyone who thinks that BP is the shining star of environmental and safety track records needs to take an hour or two and start digging around on the internet. Anyone who wants to come to the defense of BP/ARCO is either insane or an attorney looking to get rich. Eric Holder is definitely not the first government official to threaten a criminal investigation into BP/ARCO’s activities.
So, why doesn’t BP straighten up its insolent corporate act? Because, historically speaking, BP has made more money by operating the way it does. With the hundreds of billions of dollars of operations they have around the world, they have figured it out that they can shave corners and cuts costs in all of them and, should anything bad happen in one of them they will have saved far more than enough to cover the costs, fines and legal fees involved.
In Yerington, Nevada, its shuttered Yerington Anaconda Copper Mine is an environmental disaster that is polluting ground water with uranium and chemicals. For almost ten years, BP has stalled, stalled and stalled on the cleanup of the site. Many unilateral orders of consent have been issued by the EPA to prod BP into accomplishing what little it has accomplished so far. But, the magnitude of the problem continues to grow day by day.
If you want a one-stop source of information about BP’s past misdeeds around the world and how it has handled that Yerington Mine disaster, check out www.yamsite.info.
I heard the argument that, if we boycott BP/ARCO at the pumps, we could drive them out of business and then we, the taxpayers, would be left holding the bag for the cleanup costs in the Gulf. That’s very naïve. The plain simple fact of the matter is that BP/ARCO is not going to go bankrupt. It has dozens of operating divisions and can sever any one of them at any time, including U.S. operations, and never look back. They have associations and operations all over the world including Iran.
We’re going to end up paying through the nose for this disaster anyway. They will fight in court every step of the way, and we’ll be stuck with the legal fees. Historically, you will see them fighting until some Court hits them with $500 million here and there and then they’ll threaten to appeal and offer to settle out of court for $100 million and they’ll get away with it. If they’ve spent $1 billion in the Gulf already on this cleanup, that is 1/25th of the money they make every year. That $1 billion will get written off against tax liabilities and we are going to therefore be stuck for it anyway.
We would like to proclaim that we are not to blame for the way BP does business, but we are. We allow their cavalier attitude toward safety and the environment to continue; our courts and agencies let them off the hook much too easily, and we continue to buy their gas although they have been in trouble in several states for their pricing strategies.
As for me, I’ll be damned if I’ll buy one ounce of their gas; I’ll walk first.
(Reprinted from www.werenottoblame.blogspot.com, June 5, 2010)
Opinion: LOCAL FACTS ABOUT THE YERINGTON ANACONDA MINE ALSO NEED TO BE CLEANED UP
When this website was started, I was the Tribal Manager for the Yerington Paiute Tribe. There was some community talk that I was using this website to advance the agendas of the tribe. Nothing could have been further from the truth. This site was developed to bring all of the information possible under one roof. There were many technical aspects of the site that I learned as a result of my association with the tribe that never were mentioned on this website due to confidentiality reasons.
I have not been associated with the tribe since May 31, 2006, when I resigned to take another position with another tribe in northern California... starting June 1. Now we herald the revival of the Yamsite. I no longer live nor work in Yerington, let alone Nevada. But, after spending 36 years in Nevada, I claim it as my home. I came to love and respect the residents of the Mason Valley during the 3-1/2 years I was Tribal Manager.
So, here I am. I can be totally objective, as I honestly was during those years and no one can claim that I am using this website to push anyone’s agenda. However, I am aware of a dangerous environmental condition that exists in the Mason Valley and I recognize that this condition can and does have serious adverse health and economic implications that simply must be proactively addressed and dealt with.
One of the biggest issues regarding the mine site is that there has been too much misinformation and disinformation spread around. For example, I am way over here in northern California and I struck up a conversation recently where the other party referred to Yerington as to “glowing in the dark” with radioactivity. Then, he went on to say that he could not understand why some people down there wouldn’t want to clean it up. Now that I have been away from the issue for four years, I think I can look back at it and say that there has been too damned much misinformation, disinformation, and denial out there. As a result, you have well-meaning people proffering objections to NPL and Superfund on the basis that it will stigmatize the community and reduce economic viability while the simple fact is…. That’s already the case.
As nasty as the mine site contaminants are, they are not as nasty as the wrong information that has been put out there by people who really don’t understand that:
1. Uranium or radioactivity in the groundwater is highly unlikely to get into onions or alfalfa, (see discussions in this website)
2. Uranium or radioactivity or various mining chemicals in the groundwater or air can adversely affect the physical health of humans and livestock
3. The potential groundwater effects of the site are currently limited to the west of the Walker River and north of the mine site, as far as we have any reason to believe, and not to the whole valley
4. The potential air quality of the mine site appears to be relatively safe on calm days and all of the evidence is not yet in as to what occurs on windy days
5. Sand is accumulating in the alluvial plains of the mountains east of the valley and it could reasonably be assumed that the sand is coming from the mine site
6. No investigation has been conducted in those areas
7. There is no proven evidence of elevated levels of radon in the crawl spaces of Mason Valley structures, but that has not yet been fully investigated
8. There is no “secret plot” to divert Mason Valley groundwater water to California and then to southern Nevada by cooperative agreements
9. Forcing BP/ARCO to clean up the mine and mitigate the environmental concerns can only increase property values and economic activity as opposed to decreasing it; check out communities that have addressed and resolved these issues
10. The issues of human health should, in any reasonable person’s reasoning power, trump any and all opposing arguments and it is within the power of the people of Mason Valley to take care of the problem
11. If the necessary steps to remediate the environmental issues at the mine site had begun just five years ago, there would have been lower unemployment in that part of Lyon County and sufficient progress would have been made for Mason Valley to start advertising… “We Believe In and Support a Clean Environment”
This cannot be about egos; it cannot be about relying on the wrong information. The money for the work that is ongoing at the site is about to run out. The community needs to pull together to find the truth; once the community understands the truth, it needs to force listing of the mine on the NPL. The truth lies within this website. There is all of the science in the world to support the fact that something needs to be done, and the sooner the better.
The community needs to ensure funding for the mine site remediation and for covering the costs of effective national advertising to correct the adverse opinions about the Mason Valley that have been created by those in charge who could have had it all cleaned up by now, had they themselves not misunderstood what they were dealing with.
I recommend a totally open and frank community meeting as soon as possible. Let's get it all out on the table and kill the head of this poisonous snake before it's too damned late.
Robert A. Boyce, Sr. - Webmaster (05-14-2010)
The pages of this website are filled with information about the many misdeeds of BP/ARCO, both at various paces in the United States and in many nations abroad. It should come as no surprise that BP America is now denying its responsibility for the massive oil leak at the bottom of the Gulf ocean floor.
Those involved with various stages of the drilling operations all point to the fact that it was BP who selected the site and prepared the plans for drilling. And, it is BP that would reap the profits when they turned on the spigots and started the oil flowing. The ultimate responsibility for the safety of the rig and its employees lies with BP/ARCO, regardless of who subcontracts for various portions of the project. Additionally, information has been provided that BP, in an effort to shave operating costs, did not tell Halliburton how deep the well actually is. The deeper the well, the greater the pressure and the greater the pressure, the more material has top go into capping the wellhead to prevent pressure from causing a "blow out." Workers who escape the explosion and fire have stated that a massive bubble of methane gas escaped from the wellhead and surfaced below the rig, causing the resulting explosion.
That would account for the failure of the automatic shutoff valve to operate at the wellhead. It would account for the fact that the explosion occurred so quickly and violently that rig workers had no time to attempt a manual shutoff.
What will follow now is the traditional "lawyering up" by BP, stonewalling, and fighting in court for 15 to 20 years to come to deny any and all responsibility. It's a tactic that they have used for decades.
With funds drying up for the continued cleanup of the Yerington Mine, it may be wise to start considering a push to have the site listed on the NPL.
Robert A. Boyce Sr. - Webmaster (05-11-2010)
Have an opinion? Send it to webmaster@yamsite.info.