People oppose mining development for a number of reasons, to protect the environment, to preserve the character of the community and because the product that is being mined is extremely controversial. Here is an Arizona Daily Star interview with two of the leading opponents of the proposed Rosemont Copper Mine in Arizona.  Remember that opponents do not have to be factually correct while waging the opposition; look for instances of this during the interview.

One of the hazards faced by a junior mining company is that their capital investments will not take them through the permitting process, construction and to the point where they can generate revenue.  In the last question of the interview the opponents admit their acknowledgement of this problem and talk about the strategy to drag the permitting process out, which can dry up the applicant’s capital.

Click here for full story:

Christopher Hopkins is senior vice president for aggregatives and mining for The Saint Consulting Group, email hopkins@tscg.biz, phone 615-656-3794

Even as the level of new development and construction has fallen to historic lows nationally, a recent study suggests that recession-stung Americans appear to be more willing to support new commercial projects in their communities. That would be a rare retrenchment from the prevailing NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) attitude toward growth coined as a catchy acronym some 30 years ago, Randyl Drummer writes for the Costar Group.

A recent survey by the Hingham, MA-based Saint Consulting Grou, found that more than two-thirds (68%) of those it sureveyed said they are more likely to support new projects in their hometown in light of current economic conditions, up nearly 10% from a year ago. The 2010 Saint Index survey of U.S. attitudes about real estate projects and development found that opposition continued to wane and support increased for a range of commercial projects, including power plants and major retail projects such as superstores, malls, large department stores and home improvement centers — compared with attitudes measured during more prosperous times five years ago.

In addition to the survey results, Costar explores how levels of cooperation between local governments, citizens and commercial development interests in Southern California vary widely depending on the project and the jurisdiction.

For Costar’s full report, click here.

For more information about the Saint Index, click here.

Of 1,000 adults interviewed nationwide, 68% said they are more likely to support new projects in their hometown in light of the current economic situation. That is up nearly 10% from one year ago, according to the annual Saint Index survey attitudes about real estate projects and development.

For the full Rock Products article, click here

68% of Americans say they are more likely to support new real estate development projects in their communities because of the current economic situation, according to the 2010 Saint Index. That is an increase of 9 points since last year.

This increase in support is also demonstrated by increased levels of support across virtually every land use tested by the Saint Index.  Developers should find it easier to find support for their projects everywhere but remember- supporters usually don’t show up.  They don’t contact elected officials or go to public hearings and they don’t carry a grudge if the vote does not go their way.  We regularly see hearing rooms packed with opponents in communities were the vast majority of residents favor a project.

Developers need to work to leverage these improving support numbers into demonstrable support at city hall.  That means working kitchen table to kitchen table to build relationships, get feedback on your project and organizing supporters to ensure that the vocal and passionate opponents of your project are not the only voices elected officials are hearing.

The Saint Index is the only international survey that quantifies and studies opposition to development.  The 2010 U.S. Saint Index involved interviews with 1,000 adults nationwide. For more information on the Saint Index go to http://tscg.biz/the-saint-index or contact us directly for a briefing focusing on your industry. Email: shepherd@tscg.biz or call 781 749 7290, ext 7121 on your industry.

Sometimes the NIMBY reaction is emotional and not rational.  We have seen projects proposed in blighted areas that would result in desperately needed investment and drastic improvements in a neighborhood that actively and vehemently opposed the project.  Fear of the unknown.

Overcoming this fear of the unknown requires some patience and one-on-one meetings with residents to build trust and relationships.  Good projects die every day because no one paid attention to the local politics.

The Saint Index is the only international survey that quantifies and studies opposition to development.  For more information on the Saint Index go to http://tscg.biz/the-saint-index or contact us directly for a briefing focusing on your industry.

18% of Americans have actively supported a development project in their community. That means they have organized, called elected officials, gathered petition signatures, wrote letters or acted in some way to demonstrate support for a local project.

Active support has been trending up for the last five years.  In 2006, Americans were twice as likely to actively oppose a project as to support one.  Now the levels of opposition and support are virtually tied with those who have actively opposed at 20%.

Fear and anger are stronger motivators, and we still see hearing rooms packed with project opponents even in areas where the polling shows massive support.  These numbers are encouraging, but just because a developer has majority support, they should not assume it’s clear sailing.  It’s all about the politics, and a room full of angry constituents can negate any understanding or goodwill a developer may have.  Local officials are not likely to commit political suicide for your project.

The Saint Index is the only international survey that quantifies and studies opposition to development.  For more information on the Saint Index go to http://tscg.biz/the-saint-index or contact us directly for a briefing focusing on your industry. Email: shepherd@tscg.biz or call 781 749 7290, ext 7121 on your industry.

Uranium is a new green alternative. Mickey Fulp talks about the need for increased uranium production in the United States. Green you may ask? Nuclear energy expels virtually no carbon emissions into the atmosphere. But since the crash of the uranium mining industry in the U.S. in the late 70’s and early 80’s, there is little domestic uranium produced, in fact there is an annual 51 million pound import deficit powering our plants.

The future supply of uranium will drop due to the end of the “Megatons to Megawatts” program, and the demand will increase with an international increased generation of nuclear power. The domestic future for nuclear energy is dim unless the public, government and environmentalists come to an agreement regarding the safety of mining uranium in the United States — Christopher Hopkins, senior vice president for aggregates and mining, The Saint Consulting Group)

A Monday Morning Musing (August 9, 2010) from Mickey the Mercenary Geologist,  Michael S. “Mickey” Fulp

Uranium is commonly known as “the other yellow metal,” because the uranium oxide concentrate produced by early mines and mills was a bright yellow, coarse powder called “yellowcake.”

However, there is now good reason to consider uranium “green.” Nuclear power plants produce electricity with only a minute amount of greenhouse gases. With the current worldwide emphasis on reducing carbon emissions, environmental, scientific, and political communities are supporting expansion of nuclear power production as a green technology.

Even the co-founder of Greenpeace Patrick Moore supports nuclear power as a means of mitigating climate change. My how times have changed!

The U.S. domestic uranium business was devastated in 1979 with the accident at Three Mile Island. That event combined with the fictional movie about a nuclear reactor meltdown starring Jane Fonda (The China Syndrome) led to massive protests against nuclear power by environmentalists. Numerous plants in the planning stage or under construction were cancelled due to permitting difficulties, construction delays, and cost overruns. The uranium price collapsed and nearly all domestic mines were shut down by the mid to late 1980s.

Although nuclear energy continues to supply nearly 20 percent of our electricity, it’s been 14 years since a new nuclear power plant has been commissioned in the United States. The de facto moratorium on new construction will end with President Obama’s recent announcement of government loan guarantees for building two new nuclear reactors in Georgia. But the damage has been done: during the past 30 years the United States has gone from a net exporter of uranium to a massive importer. We currently consume 55 million pounds while producing only four million pounds of uranium a year.

Worldwide, nuclear energy supplies about 13 percent of electrical power and that percentage is projected to grow substantially over the next two decades. There are currently 56 new nuclear reactors under construction in the world and more than 200 are on the drawing board. There will be a substantial increase in uranium demand over the next 20 years.Nearly half of the world’s 2009 uranium mine supply came from countries that are geopolitically unstable, corrupt, or unfriendly to the West. The top ten producers include Kazakhstan (which recently became the world’s largest), Russia, Niger, Uzbekistan, China, and Ukraine.

This is not an all-star cast of model governments. Kazakhstan is increasingly nationalizing its nuclear power industry. Leaders of the country’s state-owned uranium mining company were charged with corruption last year. Niger had a military coup that overthrew its despotic president one year ago. And Uzbekistan recently closed its border with Kyrgyzstan to refugees fleeing ethnic bloodshed, as a result of the government coup.

I doubt few Americans would consider two other countries on this list, Russia and China, to be our trusted friends. Ukraine is a former Soviet republic and lies within the Russian sphere of influence.

As if this was not enough, one-half of our domestic uranium consumption for the past 15 years has been supplied by the dismantling of Russian nuclear weapons and the conversion of weapons-grade uranium to reactor-grade uranium. Known as the “Megatons to Megawatts” program, that supply agreement expires in 2013.

So, where will the United States get its uranium supply in the next 20 years? The current yearly deficit is over 50 million pounds and the Russians are cutting half of that supply in three years.

I think a partial answer lies in revitalizing our domestic uranium mining industry. There are numerous uranium projects in advanced permitting, construction, and development stages in the Western United States and Texas. However, with a recent spot uranium price of $46 per pound and a long-term contract price of $60 per pound, little investment interest currently exists for uranium explorers, developers, and miners.

The uranium sector of our micro-cap junior resource market has been beaten up and trounced upon since the uranium spot price collapsed from $135 per pound in mid-2007. It is a forgotten commodity with a few strong companies surviving from the many juniors that piled into the sector during the uranium bubble days.

And that is precisely why I am interested.

As subscribers and regular readers know, I employ a contrarian philosophy and strive to identify sectors that are out of favor with the speculating investment community and choose undervalued companies with the right combination of share structure, people, and projects that will lead to rewards for shareholders.

I like to buy when volumes and prices are low to be well-positioned for a run-up when the sector comes back on the investor’s radar screen.

In the gold sector, I commonly invest in exploration companies that operate in countries with significant geopolitical risk. Since these emerging market countries have not had every meter of ground trod upon by curious geologists in the past, giant gold deposits still can be discovered by the tried and true methods of “boot leather and drilling.”

However, I am unwilling to take those sorts of risks in the highly sensitive and geopolitically risky uranium business.

The companies that draw my interest are exploring and developing projects in past and/or currently producing major districts in North America. These geologically and geopolitically favorable areas include the largest and highest grade uranium province in the world, Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin; the world’s second largest producer, New Mexico’s Grants Mineral Belt; the Wyoming Basins; and the South Texas Uranium district.

In my opinion, the junior uranium sector offers good speculative risk/reward with current market valuations. I see opportunities to make some “green” with my uranium plays.

My favorite uranium company is project developer Strathmore Minerals Corp (Mercenary Musing, April 7, 2010). Please note that I am a shareholder and the company sponsors my website.

Folks, I urge you to do your own research and due diligence, assess your personal risk profile, and decide if there are companies in this space that are worthy of your investment.

Ciao for now,

Mickey Fulp Mercenary Geologist, email: Contact@MercenaryGeologist.com

Christopher Hopkins is senior vice president for aggregates and mining, The Saint Consulting Group, email hopkins@tscg.biz, phone 615-656-3794

Years ago, elected officials wanted to make an impact and be able to point to new commercial development from their term in office.  They wanted to show their constituents that they brought home the jobs and tax dollars associated with the new mall, grocery store, power plant or other large scale project.  Times have changed.

Today, the savvy and ambitious elected official knows that the passion, energy and commitment that will propel him to the next office or send him looking for other less prestigious employment is with the opponents to development.  Supporters of a new retail establishment are unlikely to give up a Tuesday night for a public hearing.  They are not that committed.  Sure they will shop there, but they do not have a real passion or commitment to make their voices heard at city hall to make sure it get approved.

The opponents, people who are worried about how this project will lower their property values, how it will impact the character of their community or how the additional traffic will lengthen their commute  are going to pack the hearing room and voice their fears and opposition.

The entire process is now skewed against development.

The Saint Index is the only international survey that quantifies and studies opposition to development.  For more information on the Saint Index go to http://tscg.biz/the-saint-index or contact us directly for a briefing focusing on your industry. Email: shepherd@tscg.biz or call 781 749 7290, ext 7121 on your industry.

It should come as no surprise that the American public is cynical about our political process. The way land use decisions are made IS a political process.  Developers need to understand that they often do not have the credibility and the influence to get projects approved in the face of passionate local constituent opposition.

In fact, 67% of Americans believe that the relationship between developers and elected officials makes the process unfair.

Back room deals and “quiet” holiday season hearings are increasingly failing strategies.  Faced with a hearing room full of angry constituents, elected officials are unlikely to commit political suicide to approve an out of town developers project.

The Saint Index is the only international survey that quantifies and studies opposition to development.  For more information on the Saint Index go to http://tscg.biz/the-saint-index or contact us directly for a briefing focusing on your industry. Email: shepherd@tscg.biz or call 781 749 7290, ext 7121 on your industry.

Opposition to development nationally is at 74% and, as the chart here illustrates, there are no regions of the United States where developers can count on a calm and quiet public hearing.

Mass media, the internet and social networking all help to level this playing field.  Residents of every state have seen twenty years of media stories reporting on home owners fighting proposed big box stores and winning.  Everyone thinks they can storm city hall and pressure elected officials to deny zoning changes and building permits.  Political novices can get “how-to” directions on the web.

The Saint Index is the only international survey that quantifies and studies opposition to development.  For more information on the Saint Index go to http://tscg.biz/the-saint-index or contact us directly for a briefing focusing    on your industry. Email: shepherd@tscg.biz or call 781 749 7290, ext 7121 on your industry.