Who owns the west?

Summary of Mining Plans of Operation in Utah.

Jump to: Plan/Notice Owners | Claims | Patents | Map

Location:   

Currently on file with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are 247 mining plans and notices filed by 52 companies and 33 individuals, encompassing a total estimated area of 4,498 acres of BLM-managed public land in Utah. These plans and notices are filed on public land laden with gold, silver, copper and other precious metals and minerals worth billions of dollars. And these operations are only those on BLM lands, not on Forest Service lands, for which mining plans and notices are not entered into the government's LR2000 database that forms the backbone of this site. But whether the mines are on BLM or Forest Service land, none of the corporate revenue is reimbursed to the public. Instead, companies leave behind unfathomable amounts of waste. In 2001 alone, the industry dumped enough mercury nationally to fill a billion thermometers and arsenic in quantities that would pollute all public drinking water supplies for 350 years. In 2001, mines generated 45 percent of all pollution reported in the U.S. while accounting for just 0.36 percent of all industrial facilities.

Quick facts about mining plans on BLM land in Utah

• Acres of U.S. public land (BLM land only) under mining plans and notices, estimated: 4,498

• Pollution from all US mining operations, ranking among all U.S. industries: : #1 in total toxic releases

• Pollution from top 89 mines in US: 5 times pollution from entire U.S. chemical industry (3,600 plants)

• Western water polluted by mine waste: 40 percent of Western headwaters

• Proposed mining operations that have been blocked by the Department of Interior because they posed a risk to public health or the environment: None

• Other land uses that supercede rights of mining companies to operate on public lands: None

EWG analysis of data compiled by the Bureau of Land Management.


Top Mining Plan/Notice Companies/Individuals on BLM land in Utah Ranked by Acres Affected

Companies have been consolidated to account for subsidiaries. View this table without consolidation.

 Company/IndividualHeadquartersNumber of Mining Plans & Notices on BLM landEstimated AcreagePlan Date(s)
1 Lisbon Copper Ltd Murray, UT 2 1,157 1986 to 1997
2 Raymond Kunkel Murray, UT 2 1,157 1986 to 1997
3 Paul R Clemons Scottsdale, AZ 2 1,157 1986 to 1997
4 Atlas Minerals Corp Moab, UT 5 1,139 1981 to 1997
5 Summo USA Corp Denver, CO 1 1,104 1997
6 Mary Lou Kosanke Bluff, UT 1 1,104 1997
7 Gerald F Laughter Floravista, NM 1 420 0
8 Gold Terra Inc Price, UT 1 320 0
9 Permin Exploration New York City, NY 1 295 1988
10 Fawcett Legrande St George, UT 1 295 1988
See all plan/notice holders in Utah

 

Counties in Utah Ranked by Acres Affected by Plans and Notices

 CountyNumber of Mining Plans & Notices on BLM landEstimated Acreage  
1 San Juan County 11 1,345 details map
2 Box Elder County 19 766 details map
3 Emery County 31 506 details map
4 Grand County 8 458 details map
5 Washington County 15 345 details map
6 Millard County 23 315 details map
7 Juab County 21 192 details map
8 Tooele County 31 172 details map
9 Beaver County 25 126 details map
10 Iron County 11 101 details map
See all counties

 

Examples of Mines in Utah

Name of MineLocation of MineMine StatusMetal MinedOwner or Parent Company of Owner
Bingham Canyon MineSalt Lake County, UTOpenCopper OreRio Tinto Limited
Barney's Canyon Gold MineSalt Lake County, UTOpenGoldRio Tinto Limited
TrixieJuab County, UTOpenGoldTintic Utah Metals, Llc

Source: EWG analysis.

 

Location:   


Source: EWG analysis of Bureau of Land Management's Land and Mineral Records 2000 (LR2000) data system. For claims, acreages are estimated based on maximum allowable size of claims. For patents, acreages are taken directly from the LR2000 database where available, and are estimated based on maximum allowable size of claim that preceded the patent where acreages are not noted in LR2000. All notices are assumed to be five acres in size, and the size of plans are calculated directly as the size of the land represented by the legal land description in the LR2000 database. The acreages we estimate through these methods would tend to overestimate the actual amount. We welcome corrections here, and would welcome a federal data management system that included the acreages involved in these important federal land transactions.