Queen Creek needs your Help (again)

BGBingham wrote: Sure it does. Mining companies have practices that don't make sense with respect to the mining law (such as lode claims over disseminated copper porphyry deposits) and now RCM wants special treatment to circumvent the intent of the mining law (proving economic feasibility to gain patent). Seems to me that this sort of stuff shows that the mining law is truly antiquated and needs revision including discussion of royalties. B

Lode claims over porphyry systems have well over 100 years of well-established precident in the US. (Try Climax Mine - discovered in 1874 first production in 1914, try Bingham Canyon - first production in ~1900 for two). That's a ridiculous argument.

RCM would not be getting special treatment, again, because no hardrock mine in the US pays royalties under US law. RCM is not cirvumventing the Mining Law, or its intent. The intent of the law is quite clear, and RCM is in the process of drilling and sinking a shaft so that they can conduct the tests needed to prove up economic feasibility.

Rocket surgery?

Dave Loring wrote:RCM is in the process of drilling and sinking a shaft so that they can conduct the tests needed to prove up economic feasibility.

Exactly. Economic feasibility is not proven so why should RCM gain ownership of the land before this occurs and the public has the necessary information for making an informed decision as to the feasibility?

Most likely because RCM doesn't want an informed public requesting that feasibility is determined with accounting for end of mine life conditions and true sustainability as part of the equation. Billions are currently being spent cleaning up messes made by mining companies who failed in this regard. I'd rather see that money spent innovating at the start, than after the fact in an attempt to remedy something that is FUBAR.

With respect to lode claims: "One hundred years" of placing claims in a silly manner with respect to the actual configuration of a mineral deposit only goes to show the perpetual resistance to change and innovation that has become structural in our extractive industries.

B

I'm guessing that very few here actually work in the mining industry and have any idea of the process involved in opening a mine in the continental US. If you don't like mines than don't buy ANYTHING. The nature of opening any copper porphyry requires an incredible mount of capital. Scare mongering regarding "foreign ownership" is silly and ignorant, and only belies lack of understanding regarding the nature of the industry.

If you don't like mining, don't consume. Simple as that. That's where it begins and ends.

Given the current economic situation, particularly in Arizona, I would glady trade climbing access to an area that few people, that I know, go to. I'm all for having opportunities for hard working people to have jobs.

There are plenty of other, far superior, places all over the world to climb.

Dobo

mr.dobo,

Your logic is straight out of the middle ages. It is the statement of a serf.

Of course people use "stuff". All the more reason that they take an interest in how the "stuff" comes to be. Guilting people into accepting bad practices, with your argument, originates with those who care only for the next quarterly statement and perpetuates ignorance.

I use copper every single day, does not mean I want or need to accept that it is ill gotten. Plenty in the mining industry work to improve practices, but as Upton Sinclair wrote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understand­ing it."

B

mr.dobo wrote:If you don't like mining, don't consume. Simple as that.

CJD wrote:You guys can keep fighting to stop the mine

CJD, mr. dobo,

Few climbers are against a mine, as many have said time and time again on this topic.

The real issue is about preserving a public recreational resource.

Miners have proven themselves talented and capable technicians in the past and have an opportunity at Oak Flat also.

mr.dobo wrote:There are plenty of other, far superior, places all over the world to climb. Dobo

Well, certainly, I suppose if you have an unlimited budget or are unencumbered by modern life's responsibilities, one can certainly fly off on a whim to a distant, magical climbing land rather than go to the one down the highway a bit and be back home for dinner.

Most of us locals though don't have that sort of discretion and are quite fond of our designated, local, public recreational lands.

Fred

Linda White wrote:CDJ- The QCC does not want any support or care of support from the public, they are incorporated and do their dealing behind closed door. As a result of endorsing the mine, they do not represent the climbing community. Sorry buddy, they folded in my eyes. There are more issues out there than just saving a few climbs. (As you know.)

Linda,

Several of your statements above are not accurate.

First, the QCC very much values the support and opinion of the "public". Many members of the community (including myself) are in direct contact with them and I can tell you from experience that they appreciate it.

Second, the fact that they are incorporated has nothing to do with whether or not they appreciate support and input from the climbing community.

Third, they have NOT endorsed the mine. They may do so in the future should an acceptable agreement be made. There will be opportunity for the community to review any such agreement before it is completed.

And finally, there are people in the community that want the QCC to make a deal on our behalf, including myself. If they arrive at a deal and the mine (for whatever reason) doesn't happen, fantasic. If the mine does happen, however, I definitely want a deal in place.

Geir Hundal wrote:There will be opportunity for the community to review any such agreement before it is completed.

Huh! Several of the "community" were booted out thus showing that the coalition wasn't a coalition anymore. QCC should by all rights change their name. They could keep the acronym by changing "coalition" to "club".

QCC does not represent the climbing community. As climbers we are divided just as the rest of the country is politically. Get us together around a campfire and the division isn't so apparent. But if I were a betting man I'd lay down a bet that most climbers wouldn't agree with you Geir.

More importantly, I don't want RCM doing its usual SOP of lumping a community into a narrowly defined group that extends endorsement because it has received relative trinkets, something that pales in comparison to what is actually at stake.

B

BGBingham wrote:mr.dobo, Your logic is straight out of the middle ages. It is the statement of a serf. Of course people use "stuff". All the more reason that they take an interest in how the "stuff" comes to be. Guilting people into accepting bad practices, with your argument, originates with those who care only for the next quarterly statement and perpetuates ignorance. I use copper every single day, does not mean I want or need to accept that it is ill gotten. Plenty in the mining industry work to improve practices, but as Upton Sinclair wrote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understand­ing it." B

Do you know where the copper you use comes from?

How do you know what sort of practices were used to extract your copper?

What do you know regarding how mining practices in the US compare to the rest of the world?

I agree strongly with the sentiment of this thread; that it is justifiable and right to be asking questions regarding the long term viability of public lands. I do, however, worry that ignorance and disinformaion distract from meaningfull discussion on both sides.

I can see that this is a very emotional issue for you bob. if you're feeling guilt maybe you need to consume less. Have you considered a consumption audit?

To be clear, I'm 100% for the development of mines. Mining can be done responsibly and can be economically viable. You can shut your ears and scream all you want, mines are here to stay. Until I find a way to change my consumtion habits, I must seek out how to make sure that what mining is done, is done in a socially conscious way.

Instead of calling names, try to understand those that may disagree with you. I know that bringing this viewpoint to this forum would be unpopular.

BTW, no, i am not a miner, just a person who tries to understand the reasons why the world works he way it does.

I can understand those who cannot go elsewhere for outdoor activities would have a vested interest in preserving nearby resources,. My sympathies are with you.

mr.dobo wrote: Do you know where the copper you use comes from? How do you know what sort of practices were used to extract your copper? What do you know regarding how mining practices in the US compare to the rest of the world?

Of course I do. I worked in the industry for 25 years. I've heard your black and white 'I use copper therefore I need to accept how it is extracted argument' too many times. It is simplistic.

mr.dobo wrote:I do, however, worry that ignorance and disinformaion distract from meaningfull discussion on both sides.

RCM has control of a large purse and uses it to influence outcomes while it neglects to enlighten "us" as to the full parameters of its proposed project.

mr.dobo wrote:...if you're feeling guilt maybe you need to consume less.

I'm not feeling guilt. I called you out for offering up a guilt ridden, black or white, tired old argument that is decisive.

mr.dobo wrote:Mining can be done responsibly and can be economically viable.

It sure can be, but the mining companies need to have their collective feet held to the fire in a big way.

mr.dobo wrote:You can shut your ears and scream all you want, mines are here to stay...Instead of calling names...

Really? I am screaming and calling names? You have mischaracterized me mr.dobo.

So you know, two people posting above currently work in the mining business and are certainly capable of taking care of themselves in an online forum.

LOL,

Not Bob

BGBingham wrote: Of course I do. I worked in the industry for 25 years. I've heard your black and white 'I use copper therefore I need to accept how it is extracted argument' too many times. It is simplistic. RCM has control of a large purse and uses it to influence outcomes while it neglects to enlighten "us" as to the full parameters of its proposed project.

Putting your time in the industry like you have, you know the difficulties associated with a green/brownfields project like this. You want the "full parameters" of the mining, processing, and reclamation for Resolution now, or before any land exchange? Planning a ~500,000 ton/yr copper mine takes just that, lots of planning I would assume. Planning needs both time and money. As a geologist, you wouldn't go spend your time and money exploring on someone else's claims without certain assurances. Why would you expect a mining company to invest hundreds of millions of dollars without a few assurances? How can you expect "full parameters" without the amount of effort (time and money) necessary? Because of the project permitting (NEPA), and the inherit investment risks with block caving, Resolution needs to do the best exploratory and prefeasibility work possible, for NEPA and themselves. So, if you want "full parameters", as you know, the work needs to be done.

Hearing and Listening, I've discovered, are not always the same. Que Lastima!

It sounds like you have a lot of residual issues with your industry. I agree it's not exactly cutting edge, but It's there because of you and me. I'd like to hear your ideas, as an "insider", how to improve mining.

That's really great that you know where all your copper comes from! Wow, do you know the names of the guys that mined it as well? I think you could easily start a consumer advocacy that informs consumers what copper mines use good practice. Sign me up! It could be like the organic fad, youre really on to something I think. Well played, you old scoundrel!!

It really sounds like you do need a consumption audit, I'll send you a link. Consumption guilt is a real downer!

Dobo

I fear this thread is digressing rapidly, my apologies. Please gather as much information you can to make informed decisions regarding where you invest your energy.

Considering the amount of hoops that mining companies must jump through before they can dig up our "stuff", from exploration to due diligence to pre-feasibility to feasibility to feasibility to operations to reclamation, it's a wonder the industry makes any money at all! There's some that would argue given all the hidden/legacy costs that it doesn't! Its just a huge subsidized industry that exists to provide for us.

The ONLY issues are overconsumption and overpopulation. Everything else is a distraction. Do your part.

Serf Dobo

So readers of this thread know, I regularly climbed at Oak Flat/Queen Creek for 16 years. I love the place. I have seen a lot of amazing things there and knew and know lots of different kinds of people who have loved and enjoyed the place as well.

RCM's first president initiated a dialogue that drew a very distinct line in the sand. It involved the notion that the mining method of block cave and its extension, panel cave, were immutable.

As a miner and in the 1990's I attended meetings where block cave was the chosen method for a particular deposit, but where a continuous backfill would be used to prevent subsidence. In this particular case the company decided to not mine. But the method has been thought about and designed.

I would much rather see RCM spend millions on backfill blockcave R&D than on PR and lobbying. IMO, a Sequenced Backfill Panel Cave (SBPC) should certainly be a part of the dialogue with a primary goal of no subsidence.

In the old days, when R&D was done by plentiful educational institutions, the now defunct Bureau of Mines, and forward looking mining companies this was a possibility. Now the quarter to quarter masters at mining companies can't see too far into the future. That is why part owner BHP dismantled a state of the art smelter just a few miles away and just a few years back that would have greatly benefited the economics of this project. So much for the notion that mining companies make good forward looking decisions.

B

Ben Beard wrote:As a geologist, you wouldn't go spend your time and money exploring on someone else's claims without certain assurances. Why would you expect a mining company to invest hundreds of millions of dollars without a few assurances?

Of course not. I hoped way back, that RCM would be more open to begin with. They laid the course that has caused them the troubles that they are now in and represented by the fact that they have run through four President's/CEO's. Early on they took on a very single minded attitude that effectively divided communities and the way these communities were characterized as they sought support from federal level politicians.

Not much is forthcoming from them in certain very important areas. Numerous times they have stated that they would take their investment and leave if they didn't get the land exchange. But they haven't because it is too good and more extensive than they let on. How come they never talk about the Superior East deposit that is similar in size but shallower just adjacent and which they acquired from ASARCO (underneath and slightly east of Devils Canyon). Lots of potential but we don't need a huge chain of glory holes running toward Globe when there are methods to mine that can prevent subsidence.

My thought is that if they want ownership of the land then this is one of the costs - zero subsidence and back fill with tailing.

B

BGBingham wrote: Huh! Several of the "community" were booted out thus showing that the coalition wasn't a coalition anymore. QCC should by all rights change their name. They could keep the acronym by changing "coalition" to "club". QCC does not represent the climbing community. As climbers we are divided just as the rest of the country is politically. Get us together around a campfire and the division isn't so apparent. But if I were a betting man I'd lay down a bet that most climbers wouldn't agree with you Geir. More importantly, I don't want RCM doing its usual SOP of lumping a community into a narrowly defined group that extends endorsement because it has received relative trinkets, something that pales in comparison to what is actually at stake. B

Brent,

Exactly what is required before an organization "speaks for the community"? Do 100% of the community members need to be on board? 75%? 51%? And who sets this standard?

The QCC may endorse the legislation or it may not. It depends on the deal. And they will present the deal to the community before making a commitment. It sounds pretty straightforward to me.

If the CCA or others want to address additional concerns, great. Do what you need to do. If you are successful in reducing some of the impact of the mine I personally will be really psyched. The only thing I take issue with is trash talk like "The QCC does not want any support or care of support from the public." That's just BS and it doesn't help any of us.

Geir Hundal wrote:And they will present the deal to the community before making a commitment. It sounds pretty straightforward to me.

Are you saying that they will present it for review and modification? That would be something. But I haven't heard that.

Geir Hundal wrote:The only thing I take issue with is trash talk like "The QCC does not want any support or care of support from the public."

Then why did they eliminate four members from their coalition board with very strong ties in the climbing community?

B

BGBingham wrote:In the old days, when R&D was done by plentiful educational institutions, the now defunct Bureau of Mines, and forward looking mining companies this was a possibility. Now the quarter to quarter masters at mining companies can't see too far into the future. That is why part owner BHP dismantled a state of the art smelter just a few miles away and just a few years back that would have greatly benefited the economics of this project. So much for the notion that mining companies make good forward looking decisions. B

I can't speak to the mistakes your generation made in the past, that resulted in the decimation of mining education & R&D facilities, the Bureau of Mines, and the elimination of the vast majority of mining jobs in this country. (Thanks, by the way - it was a bitch when I graduated with $0.60 copper).

Your generation left us with a mining industry that is hesitant to invest in the US exactly because of the additional time that RCM is taking to deal with the politics, that you don't have to deal with in S. America or Indonesia. When the price of copper is low for the good part of a decade, yeah, you shut down smelters and mines. A company does have to remain profitable and a going concern at the days prices. Sometimes that means shutting in production. 10 years ago, at 60 cent copper, Resoltion was on the list of economic projects and shutting down supply was a means to remain profitable. This ain't friggin' rocket science.

Whatever, you won't listen to someone who actually works in the industry now and has just a wee bit of insight.

BGBingham wrote:Sequenced Backfill Panel Cave (SBPC) B

By the way - has this theoretical method been published - anywhere?

It does not show up in a google search, nor is it in any of my MassMin proceedings for bulk underground mining.

BGBingham wrote: My thought is that if they want ownership of the land then this is one of the costs. B

Sounds like a square deal, Bob.

Tell more recollections of the good ol days of socially/state funded mining institutions. Weren't the miners and state mining institutions, more often than not, quite chummy? But, it's really just picking your poison I suppose, compared to the institutionalized lobbying system in place today. At least there's the ILLUSION of transparency, eh?

Economic selection is the best ally if you wish to see operations like QC fail. Chances are, with the cost structure in the US, most projects will never make it past feasibility. Unfortunately, demand does not appear to be on the downturn any time soon, so who knows? The pattern has been that most developed countries prefer to have their dirty work done by poor counties so they can have cheap gizmos.

I'd personally rather see these operations stay here where, however faulted(ha!) it may be, at least there is a system of checks and balances.

Mine in the rich, climb in the poor!

Dobo the Hood

Dave Loring wrote:This ain't friggin' rocket science. Whatever, you won't listen to someone who actually works in the industry now and has just a wee bit of insight.

Gee Dave, I'm not ready for the old folks home yet. I am not in the day to day, but then you aren't taking a very long view. I differ from you in that I believe that mining is "rocket science". It is one of our more complex human endeavors.

This world is getting smaller in direct proportion to the rapid shrinking of microchips. The United states is not the sole standard bearer of progressive ideas between industry and environment/cultural values. These ideas are spreading and getting bigger, not smaller. They may be an important part of the reason that the price of copper is up - and for good reason. More and more people don't want a trashed landscape and environment.

As to the San Manuel smelter. That appeared to be a corporate temper tantrum from my perspective and within the time frame of RCM.

B