Oak Flat News

Lindajft wrote: Funny...I just sent a letter to Jon Cherry saying that a small group of climbers, do not have the authority to speak for the climbing community in this matter.

I personally feel it would be wise for the Concerned Climbers to do the same to all representatives of Congress in D.C. if they care about saving the area. IMO the reputation of our community is an important stakeholder right that should be protected

The Bingham Canyon Mine (BCM) (aka the Kennecott Copper Mine) near Salt Lake City, is a porphyry copper mine that produces a byproduct gold volume of about 400,000 ounces per year. The daily tonnage of ore removed is quoted as being 450,000 tons per day. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingh…)

For a 365 day year, that's about 164,250,000 tons a year, which yields about .0024 ounces per ton (opt).

The gold numbers from Resolution's project have not been publicly revealed as far as I know, if they ever will be or even if there is any gold content is not known, but if it is on the order of the BCM, or .0024 opt, then the total gold content might be on the order of about 4,000,000 ounces. At a conservative $500/oz, (gold is currently about $1,500 per oz) this would amount to $2 Billion+ in value. Of course, if it's a 40 year project then on average you'll only yield about $50 million+ per year or just ~$135,000/day.

This is all pure speculation of course, but most copper mines do produce a byproduct of other elements/minerals, gold being one of the main of interest.

Adding to my previous calcs, there could potentially be $70 Billion+ of value in the ore notwithstanding other materials/elements of value such as silver, etc.

Fred

Kirra, The Concerned Climbers group works as a group conscious and with input from the Public. If you'd like to show up at our next meeting, you are welcome to bring your ideas.

There are times that I write letters from my autonomous perspective as a resident of Pinal Co and climber. I feel it is important that everyone use their voice as a person.

This project, as proposed, destroys access for multiple user groups. It is hard for climbers to climb, hikers to hike, campers to camp, Native Americans to incorporate their traditions and speak their language (which is based in physical locations) when there is a huge hole in the ground (850' deep and over a mile long as per RCM's website) that will have a fence around it marked "Keep Out".

In addition, This mega billion dollar, decades long project has some fundamental unknowns such as the source of millions of gallons of water per day to run it and where to place the mountain sized pile of tailing waste it will produce. These are not minor details, yet RCM brandishes the term "sustainable" on a regular basis to describe this project and corporate Vice President Jon Cherry can answer a question from the media as follows:

Cherry wrote:Mr. Featherstone brought up that the American Public is going to be short changed, Mr. Cherry, what is the possibility of that? Mr. Cherry explained “There is Zero possibility of that. This legislation is written in such a way that there is a fair value exchange that takes place and if you look at the details of the bill, there are Department of Justice guidelines in a federal land appraisal process that explicitly states how these things are done. That assessment is done by qualified people and overseen by the US Forest Service. The company does not do that value assessment, it’s the government that does that assessment and they are representing the people of the United States and they will ensure that a fair value exchange occurs here”.

ZERO! Well should I feel relieved? Look at the track record. For the 760 acres of land that has been removed from "mining activity" for nearly 60 years there is not a stellar record of over-site by the Forest Service. Is driving drill rigs and service trucks, changing roads, conducting seismic surveys, placing claim stakes and running water supply pipes on the withdrawal area not mining activity? Because all of these things have happened on this land.

As to calculating fair value, how can this be done when major components of the mine are still in the category of unknown?

When Cherry exclaims "Zero" it is easy to see that his first impulse is driven by a policy to always stay on positive message - where in reality it is only positive from RCM's perspective. What I and a growing number of people in the public seek, is a huge decrease in PR and greasing the political skids and for RCM to take those savings to use as they consider alternative mine designs that will not destroy the surface.

I especially like this part...
"The company does not do that value assessment, it’s the government that does that assessment and they are representing the people of the United States and they will ensure that a fair value exchange occurs here..."

I think the government has shown its inability to schedule assessments of ANYTHING currently - from the War abroad to the financial crises locally.
I KNOW they dont have my best interests at heart - and this is yet another sign of putting a band aid on the gaping suture...
Personally this doesn't surprise me - IMHO they were simply biding their time...

Here is some righteous indignation from Cherry:

Cherry wrote:He continued “We as the company, we’re doing the engineering studies and planning this mine and designing it in a way, and for those who have never even worked in the industry, let alone designed a mine or built a mine plan or operated a mine, I find it somewhat of ironic that they are telling us how to do our business”.

Well, first, I'd spend more time educating the public rather than bullying this project through Congress. I'm personally tired of politicians parroting RCM generated PR, which is simplistic at best and always accompanied with a great big happy face. Miners have institutional memories that make them automatically hold the cards very close to their chest. If anyone here is writing letters to their Representatives make sure to mention that they should be working to change the 1872 Mining Law, rather than granting discrete dispensations based on too little information

There are many people in other fields who have knowledge that would be valuable to this project. Mining needs to seek them out, not alienate them.

Part of the reason the "public" is ignorant is because RCM withholds information. An example:

Cherry wrote:We’re going to be an underground mine, we’re going to have some automated and remote controlled equipment, but that still needs and operator to operate that. He may not be sitting on that piece of equipment at the operating face of the ore body, but he’s going to be back off in the distance operating these things remotely, just like these kids playing the video games today. They’re going to be using those types of remote controls to operate some of this equipment. We do that for safety reasons, we want to make sure that we put our employees in the safest position they could possibly be in and that’s why we want to use this remotely operated equipment as opposed to maybe the automated equipment”.

Stop it with how safe you are. Your concern for safety should go without constantly telling people how wonderful you are because you care about your employees. Educate! Give the public some meat, not PR happy talk.

This mine as "planned" will be the deepest block cave ever done. Shouldn't the public know that mines are infamous for breaking things and not quite working as planned. When the weight distribution of the ore body goes wrong from some unforeseen structure, how will the video gamers set about to go into the resultant severe conditions to repair caved infrastructure?

All we hear is how RCM knows exactly how many employees they will have, etc. And many of the major pieces of this project aren't even known. This doesn't make sense whether or not one has mining experience.

BGBingham wrote:Here is some righteous indignation from Cherry: Well, first, I'd spend more time educating the public rather than bullying this project through Congress. I'm personally tired of politicians parroting RCM generated PR, which is simplistic at best and always accompanied with a great big happy face. Miners have institutional memories that make them automatically hold the cards very close to their chest. If anyone here is writing letters to their Representatives make sure to mention that they should be working to change the 1872 Mining Law, rather than granting discrete dispensations based on too little information There are many people in other fields who have knowledge that would be valuable to this project. Mining needs to seek them out, not alienate them. Part of the reason the "public" is ignorant is because RCM withholds information. An example: Stop it with how safe you are. Your concern for safety should go without constantly telling people how wonderful you are because you care about your employees. Educate! Give the public some meat, not PR happy talk. This mine as "planned" will be the deepest block cave ever done. Shouldn't the public know that mines are infamous for breaking things and not quite working as planned. When the weight distribution of the ore body goes wrong from some unforeseen structure, how will the video gamers set about to go into the resultant severe conditions to repair caved infrastructure? All we hear is how RCM knows exactly how many employees they will have, etc. And many of the major pieces of this project aren't even known. This doesn't make sense whether or not one has mining experience.

RCM Timeline
If you look at RCM's timeline you can see where they are at in what they know and with what certainty. They also do tours to the public on Fridays out of the Superior main street office.
As far as the educating the public about mining, the residents of the copper triangle are fairly knowledgeable.

Ben,

In the time-line you linked (up through 2012) it states: "Identify where the ore body is located and assess potential mining approach."

How can Jon Cherry declare:

Featherstone wrote:Mr. Featherstone brought up that the American Public is going to be short changed, Mr. Cherry, what is the possibility of that?

Cherry wrote:Mr. Cherry explained “There is Zero possibility of that. This legislation is written in such a way that there is a fair value exchange that takes place and if you look at the details of the bill, there are Department of Justice guidelines in a federal land appraisal process that explicitly states how these things are done. That assessment is done by qualified people and overseen by the US Forest Service. The company does not do that value assessment, it’s the government that does that assessment and they are representing the people of the United States and they will ensure that a fair value exchange occurs here”.

When the time line states that mining approach is still being assessed and ore body is being defined. How do you properly value something if you still don't know what you have or exactly how you are going to get it? This legislation is obviously premature!

Cherry also says:

Cherry wrote:...we’ve done the engineering studies, we’ve done the estimates, we know how big this mine will be, we know how many people it’s going to take to run and operate this thing...

How does one know how many employees will be needed when the size of the ore body and mine design still aren't determined?

Again, this legislation is premature.

Ben Beard wrote:As far as the educating the public about mining, the residents of the copper triangle are fairly knowledgeable.

This is national issue - not just the Copper Triangle. This is why climbers around the USA should contact their own legislators. They may be voting on HR 1904 soon.

Residents of the Copper Triangle may not be as informed as you think. Miners living in the Copper Triangle know a varied amount in a broad range of perspective.

CCA,

The masterpiece that you have painted still sits in an art studio that went out of business long ago.
Seeing the amount of people that are posting on this thread shows how ugly your creation is but yet the artists still try to sell their painting.

Marty Karabin - QCC Staff

Seeing The Light

Marty,
You too? I thought I just saw your post in the beginning of the year. A quick, 'save Oak Flat.'

I suppose we are just hardheaded and don't give up easily.

I am grateful that some of us are determined to keep the original mission alive.

L

While climbers are busy duking it out...meanwhile back at the ranch rumor has it that some real horse trading is going on an the level of the Senate. Got to hand it to RCM. They at least know how to keep their eye on the ball - if this is true.

Check this out:

thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com…

The Rumor: Harry Reid will support McCain on the Land Exchange because of the support of McCain on the Yucca Mountain issue.

Please write your legislators! Yucca Mountain and Oak Flat should both float or sink based on their own merits - not horse trades.

karabin museum wrote:CCA, The masterpiece that you have painted still sits in an art studio that went out of business long ago. Seeing the amount of people that are posting on this thread shows how ugly your creation is but yet the artists still try to sell their painting. Marty Karabin - QCC Staff

Marty,

I'm not sure that I, and I'd guess many of the others who advocate on behalf of the 2,000+ climbs and the general climbing environment at Oak Flat, quite get what comes off as a certain adamant arrogance in such statements as yours here?

Since you sign it as a "staff" member, I take this to be the QCC, Inc. stance and not just yours.

I'm with BGB, call your legislators, whatever state you are in.

The 3rd largest undeveoloped copper deposit in the world (per J Cherry of Resolution: news.mywebpal.com/news_tool…) should have to stand on its own and be fully understood if it's ever to go forward (IMO).

Fred

If you don't agree with Marty 100%, you are wrong, no matter what, in Marty's esteemed opinion. Marty is rather arrogant in his approach. If you don't see things his way 100%, be ready to be thrown under a bus.

Reid contact info

on the bottom of the page Reid's fax info of all his offices. I'm flooding the faxes.

L

Amazing, it took me 15 minutes to get 8 letters out and about on faxes.

Linda

Lindajft wrote: Reid contact info on the bottom of the page Reid's fax info of all his offices. I'm flooding the faxes. L

Good luck with that - Reid's from Nevada, and is pro-mining.

Fred AmRhein wrote:Just some more numbers related to the value of the the Molybdenum as reported by Resolution, .037%, or about .74 pounds of Mo per ton. ( resolutioncopper.com/res/wh…) Molybdenum trades for about $17 per pound right now, having been much higher and lower in the recent past. (see lme.com/) So, 1.6 billion tons of ore yields about 1.2 billion pounds of Mo. If one looks at a lower value of about $10 per pound this amounts to $12,000,000,000+ of value. So, just in copper (at $1 per pound) and molybdenum (at $10 per pound), a lower value of the reported deposit would be about $68 Billion based on these numbers. ($56 Billion + $12 Billion) Of course this doesn't take into account any other elements/mineral produced that could be accounted for as part of the value. Fred

"Value" does not only include the "price" of the metal in the orebody. It also includes the cost of production, investment to develop the orebody, and a discount of future cash flows.

Your assessment of "value" of the orebody is seriously flawed.

I'd loved to see another whack at it, though.

ClimbandMine wrote: "Value" does not only include the "price" of the metal in the orebody. It also includes the cost of production, investment to develop the orebody, and a discount of future cash flows. Your assessment of "value" of the orebody is seriously flawed. I'd loved to see another whack at it, though.

Fred's first stab at the value of the ore is quite conservative. Of course, Dave's listed factors above enter into the business plan.

Then there are those unforeseen costs much like those incurred by poor management decisions such as Massey's in keeping two sets of records to dodge MSHA regulators and killing 29 miners in the process.

Or not being able to work out the technology which seems to be happening at another recently initiated mine in AZ. Can't make money at $4 copper.

Or lost opportunities because management throws a collective tantrum and dismantles a state of the art smelter and misses out on $4 copper.

Oh yeah, these mining companies really know what they are doing.

ClimbandMine wrote: "Value" does not only include the "price" of the metal in the orebody. It also includes the cost of production, investment to develop the orebody, and a discount of future cash flows. Your assessment of "value" of the orebody is seriously flawed. I'd loved to see another whack at it, though.

Climb and Mine,

A couple of numbers tossed out with respect to the potential value and economic impact of the mine: (both sources are Resolution or those hired for their purposes)

"$3 Billion copper mine" (No supporting data provided on how this number is defined or determined)

aznews.us/mine_pushes_land_…

"boost the state economy by $46.4 billion over the life of the project:"

azcentral.com/arizonarepubl…

What do you come up with? It seems like you have some pretty good sense of how to do the analysis and it might be helpful for the public to know what the expected profit/year might be?

Thanks,

Fred