12/12/2009 9:59:00 PM Letter: Cement plant story leaves questions
EDITOR:
Your article on Nov. 27 about the railroad and cement plant north of Paulden at Drake was intriguing. I have read the article twice and can find no name for the cement plant. I find this curious because I have been by there several times and all I find is "CCC" and several warning notices that seem particularly threatening to me; enough so that they raise the hackles on the back of my neck.
Do you know who the ultimate owner of the plant is and where they are based? Is their product for domestic consumption? Where is the public relations department of the cement plant? One would think the plant would also want to be part of the positive spin on providing jobs for a struggling community.
Also, was the plant built on private land? Or was the land swapped out by the Forest Service?
I would like the basic facts instead of a canned company message. I sincerely hope someone can enlighten me and I thank you for your time.
Sheryl Robinson
Prescott
Reader Comments
Posted: Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Article comment by:
on-site reporting
know name,
You touched a raw nerve there. Take it from someone who was present at the first hearings about re-opening this site. The limestone is not in the tapped out old quarry where the new crusher is being constructed. The limestone canyon west of the highway contains the most plentiful and accessable material. Sierra club, 159 claims aren't irrelevant to Drake Cement. They are included as collateral for the plant's 106 million dollar construction loan. Sheryl, to illustrate the project's extent, 660,000 tons of material a year amounts to approximately one dump-truck load every 20 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, or 25,882 truck loads a year. These are some basic facts and not loose information. Do that year after year for 100 years and you'll be a far distance from where you started. Pardon me for not offering my name, people get so angry.
Posted: Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Article comment by:
It's a nasty business
But a needed one if you want cement. Until they come up with something better people will have to live with pollution and contamination of the air, water, food and so on. Eventually people will come up with an alternative out of necessity.
Posted: Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Article comment by:
Dave
No NAME;
Take a pill, go to
bed. When you wake, drop us all a line and let us know how you are feeling.
We are concerned about you!
Posted: Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Article comment by:
Gary Beverly
No Name: The production of the cement plant is limited by federal law: the air quality in the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness cannot be compromised. Using the best air pollution control technology available, Drake was limited to 660,000 tons/yr. Having more limestone claims won't increase that unless they can devise even better controls. There are 159 claims registered to Drake Cement, but that is irrelevant. The quarry they are now permitted to operate under USFS regulations is good for 100 years of operations. Overburden of 100' is the maximum economic depth for limestone mining, and that is uncommon. Throughout this entire discussion, I have attempted to be factual and accurate; you throw loose misinformation around. I do need to retract one statement: We don't need folks like you. You are afraid to identify yourself and stand behind your snarky opinions. Discussing this issue with you is like talking to a boulder. I'm done - go back into your hole and hibernate, perhaps you'll awake in a better mood and a different attitude.
Posted: Monday, December 14, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Well Sheryl, it looks like there is enough misinformation to warrant concern. There are indeed quite a few mining claims recorded in the name of Drake cement. Or should I say 266 mining claims seems like a lot to me. Seeing that those who thought they were in the "know" did not even know these claims existed is not very comforting. In fact, it makes everything sound questionable. Minimizing the scale of a project in order to get your foot in the door is a well known tactic. It is not uncommon for Limestone quarries to be a hundred feet deep so "revegetation" is nothing more than a joke and would not occur until the site is vacated. Anyone ever seen that happen? Ain't Paulden lucky to be so popular? They come and take the water, rape the viewshed, and use it as the dumping grounds for sewage.
Posted: Monday, December 14, 2009
Article comment by:
Gary Beverly
On-Site:
Good discussion here. I REPEAT FOR THE THIRD TIME: We didn't have a choice about having ONE square mile of forest "ground up" (don't know how you came up with 15 sq. mi). Federal regulations permit it, namely the Mining Law of 1872 (plus other modifications in 1947, 1954, 1955) which opens all federal lands not otherwise reserved (White House lawn, national parks, wilderness areas) to mineral extraction. The federal government gets no royalty from these extractive industries - yet another example of corporate welfare at our expense. Various attempts to reform the 1872 Act, many supported by the Sierra Club, have failed in Congress; the mining industry is extremely politically powerful. As for your other points: 1. If getting a permit motivates Drake to play nice with the environment, what's the problem here? Sounds like the permit is working to enforce the lax regulations we have to live with until we can get the laws changed. 2. I credited Drake for their pro-environmental actions because they are FAR better than the typical US cement kiln spewing dust and mercury vapor into the atmosphere - if you only knew… 3). Drake, like every other business, will sell product wherever it can - nearby markets are best. Until this year, Arizona was importing cement from the vile kilns near Victorville CA. 4) I ran my values through the gut-checker: everything checked out just fine, but thanks for your concern. While working for our ideals, I think it's important to be pragmatic by trying to extract the best results from situations that are imposed on us. 5) Lovely chat. Why don't you join us and help achieve your obviously high environmental standards? We need folks like you. email me at gbverde@cableone.net
Posted: Monday, December 14, 2009
Article comment by:
On-site reporting
A search of the corporation commission listings for Drake Cement provides an address in the Cayman Islands. Any partnership with the Yavapai-Apache tribe is hidden, if it exists. The previous owner of the site, Grant Goodman, aka Stirling Bridge, wanted to overcome foreign owned dominance in cement production and intended to provide cement for Arizona. It is not a surprise that he lost his ownership to a foreign entity. Who, besides Beverly, says the Peruvian's product is also primarily earmarked for Arizona? Obtaining a permit to operate is Drake Cement's motivation for the appearance of wanting to protect the Forest and Verde River. "Excellent enviromental" protection is refusing to grind up 15 square miles of National Forest. You need look no farther than the sandstone mines on the nearby hillside to determine how much destruction a National Forest mining permit will allow. Gary, it is time you did a gut-check on your values.
Posted: Monday, December 14, 2009
Article comment by:
Gary Beverly
No Name: The Drake limestone quarry is a surface mining operation. The overburden will be stripped away then replaced after the limestone is removed. They will revegetate, but it is absolutely true that the mining will cause a huge scar for a long time. The quarry area is about 640 acres, or one square mile. I don't know what you mean by the 4x6 mile mining claim. It is true that a Peruvian company owns Drake Cement, but the plant operations are constrained by the ADEQ and the Forest Service regulations. So it's our laws that we should be worried about, not Peru, and that's why the Sierra Club is following the issue - we have many issues with EPA and USFS regulations. As I pointed out, we didn't have a choice - federal laws allow these mines and factories. So whether we like it or not isn't the issue. Ya gotta play the cards you're dealt... This could have been a WHOLE LOT WORSE. By the way, our "little Club" is the Sierra Club, the oldest and most influential conservation organization in the USA, founded in 1892 with 1.3 million members nationwide and 569 local members. You're welcome, we're glad to be of assistance.
Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2009
Article comment by:
ArmyVet
Gary Beverly: The Courier needs to hire you as a reporter.
Thanks
Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Gary, you talk about the kiln and quarry as though you were reading it straight out of a brochure. What is missing from the brochure is any mention of the approximately 10,000 acres of mining claims which stretch for 6 miles in one direction and 4 miles in another. Limestone is extracted by strip mining, so the devastation fom this plant has the potential to convert the surrounding forest into a wasteland devoid of any plant or animal life. No offense, but shouldn't your little club be concerned about that? You might be satisfied, but I'm not convinced a company from Peru is going to care what they they do to the landscape as they steal our country's natural resources. Oh sure, you say it is all for the Arizona market, but it sounds more like someone is just blowing sunshine where it doesn't usually go. Gee thanks for all your club's help though, I guess.
Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2009
Article comment by:
mtngirl
I believe Drake Cement LLC is owned by Cementos Lima SA, a Peruvian company.
Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2009
Article comment by:
Give' Em Hell Harry
Excellent job of reporting the facts! Thanks Gary!
Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2009
Article comment by:
Gary Beverly
Drake Cement is building a portland cement kiln on 120 acres purchased from a private party in Drake, near the rim of Hell Canyon and Highway 89. Their parcel is surrounded by Prescott National Forest. The cement manufacturing process involves heating limestone and other minerals, then grinding to a fine powder. The limestone is mined from a quarry on PNF lands; Drake has a mineral extraction claim issued under current federal regulations. The plan's water use is approximately 70 acre-feet/yr, obtained from a carbonate aquifer that supplies only a few percent of the Verde River base flow. AZ Dep't of Environmental Quality issued an Air Quality Control Permit imposing the most recent EPA regulations on cement kilns. At full production, Drake will produce 660,000 tons per year, which is about half of the Clarkdale Cement plant. The product is intended to serve the Arizona market, which is now only a third of previous demand due to the recession. The plant is scheduled to begin production in May 2010.
Your local Sierra Club (me) is actively working with Drake Cement to assure environmental protection. Drake is building a modern, state-of-the-art facility. The company has shown an excellent environmental attitude and behavior to this point, and they deserve credit for their efforts to protect the Verde River and maintain the surrounding PNF lands. That said, I recognize that none of us would choose to have a cement kiln for a neighbor. We didn't have a choice, and we're lucky that Drake is here instead of other typically horrendous cement manufacturers. If anyone has further questions about this issue, please contact me at gbverde@cableone.net or visit the Sierra Club web page at http://arizona.sierraclub.org/yavapai/ You can also contact the company at 928-636-6004.
Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
As far as I know the plant's name is Drake Cement and the CCC Group you mentioned is the construction company building the plant.
Posted: Sunday, December 13, 2009
Article comment by:
Win Hjalmarson
There is an article in the Chino Valley Review on January 15, 2005: Drake mine project moving forward By Andrew Draper that may be helpful. Also, there is a USGS report: Hydrogeologic Review of the Drake Cement Project, Yavapai County, Arizona. By Laurie Wirt. Prepared in cooperation with the Prescott National Forest. USGS Open-File Report 2004-1439. This publication is only available online at URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1439/
