Climbers want the Resolution Copper mine in AZ?

ClimbandMine wrote:How many outdoor industry jobs pay people with high school educations (or less) $60,000 - $100,000 per year or more?

Nothing but environmental blood money. . . We'll pay you $60-100k because your too stupid to know this mine is going to kill you and destroy your environment while Mgmt reaps millions hand over fist.

But yeah you'll be able to buy an SUV... no worries.

ClimbandMine wrote:How many outdoor industry jobs pay people with high school educations (or less) $60,000 - $100,000 per year or more? ... Mining, manufacturing, and "old industry" jobs give people with minimal education a shot to give their family a better life.

From the Resolution Copper Mining website, Reports page (4 23 13), Economic and Fiscal Impact Survey pdf:

Direct Jobs: 1,429
Indirect jobs: 934
Induced Jobs: 1,356

Total Jobs: 3,719 (this is the # that McCain, Flake, Gosar, and others quote quite often)

Do you have a source that implies or says that the jobs for RCM (the 1,429) will be for those without high school educations (or at most high school educations?)

As I recall, the "mine of the future" that RCM has touted over the years was/is going to be quite high tech and would need a significant number of computer/tech savvy types and I think they'll probably be educated post high school?

Any source on the data you provide?

Also, I haven't heard too many advocates for the climbing at Oak Flat say that there shouldn't be a mine/mining activity with resulting jobs; just that there should be more complete consideration of the value of the surface and act graciously toward that resource.

Your comments seem to underscore the problem of having a "mine only" sort of mentality; one that demands that all other stakeholders should relegate themselves to secondary status in the face of huge (estimated/projected) economic windfalls from extracting from below and destroying what is above. The potential economic impact of the activities at the surface (recreational) are perhaps not small based on the data I presented, maybe not similarly huge, but very worthwhile and beneficial to society at large.

Additionally, it's interesting that you refer to American jobs as part of your comments yet overlook the fact that RCM is a joint venture of Rio Tinto (foreign) and BHP (foreign). Have you done an analysis to determine where most of the profits will go from the domestic copper, molybdenum, gold, etc?

Regardless, the main issue for me is the land and the views of all the traditional stakeholders; most of whom RCM is trying to eliminate with its legislation, save of course for their own, profitable self-interest. One can't read the legislation without concluding this fact unfortunately.

Seems to me that others here are calling for rational compromise not continued conflict?

Just my view,

Fred

The Phoenix wrote: Nothing but environmental blood money. . . We'll pay you $60-100k because your too stupid to know this mine is going to kill you and destroy your environment while Mgmt reaps millions hand over fist. But yeah you'll be able to buy an SUV... no worries.

How is it going to kill me again? The hardrock mining industry on average has a Total Recordable Incident Rate lower than Walmart or CocaCola. The last mine I worked at (also a block cave) had a TRIR half of that, and was recognized as a leader for its environmental practices, reclamation, and stewardship of a number of threatened species that had moved in to the property. It can be done right.

How many SUVs do you own?

You can write the check out to...

Fred AmRhein wrote: From the Resolution Copper Mining website, Reports page (4 23 13), Economic and Fiscal Impact Survey pdf: Direct Jobs: 1,429 Indirect jobs: 934 Induced Jobs: 1,356 Total Jobs: 3,719 (this is the # that McCain, Flake, Gosar, and others quote quite often) Do you have a source that implies or says that the jobs for RCM (the 1,429) will be for those without high school educations (or at most high school educations?) As I recall, the "mine of the future" that RCM has touted over the years was/is going to be quite high tech and would need a significant number of computer/tech savvy types and I think they'll probably be educated post high school? Any source on the data you provide? Also, I haven't heard too many advocates for the climbing at Oak Flat say that there shouldn't be a mine/mining activity with resulting jobs; just that there should be more complete consideration of the value of the surface and act graciously toward that resource. Your comments seem to underscore the problem of having a "mine only" sort of mentality; one that demands that all other stakeholders should relegate themselves to secondary status in the face of huge (estimated/projected) economic windfalls from extracting from below and destroying what is above. The potential economic impact of the activities at the surface (recreational) are perhaps not small based on the data I presented, maybe not similarly huge, but very worthwhile and beneficial to society at large. Additionally, it's interesting that you refer to American jobs as part of your comments yet overlook the fact that RCM is a joint venture of Rio Tinto (foreign) and BHP (foreign). Have you done an analysis to determine where most of the profits will go from the domestic copper, molybdenum, gold, etc? Regardless, the main issue for me is the land and the views of all the traditional stakeholders; most of whom RCM is trying to eliminate with its legislation, save of course for their own, profitable self-interest. One can't read the legislation without concluding this fact unfortunately. Seems to me that others here are calling for rational compromise not continued conflict? Just my view, Fred

Meh, "Mine of the Future" is over-rated. Makes for good marketing. The fact of the matter is even with some level of automation, a college educated engineer is not going to be running a drill jumbo, or fixing it. Miners and mechanics will, and they aren't typically college educated while collar types. Electricians running cable, hooking up PLCs, etc. also aren't.

I refer to American jobs because most Rio employees in the US (in Salt Lake and in Arizona) currently are American...

As I mentioned above, I doubt that Rio has enough data to do an evaluation of stoping justice.

I don't argue that recreation, tourism, and "scenic values" have societal benefits. I argue that the environmental impacts can be mitigated. And I fully believe that recreation and mining can completely coexist. Heck, they have in that area - there's been mining down there for 100 years. The mine I worked at until recently had trailheads all around it. When I hiked them and mountain biked them, people I talked to thought the mined was closed.

ClimbandMine wrote: I don't argue that recreation, tourism, and "scenic values" have societal benefits. I argue that the environmental impacts can be mitigated.

An interesting and recurring issue with respect to Resolution's proposal has been what many familiar with NEPA argue is a gutted environmental process as defined by their legislation.

It's curious that they seem to want to drive around existing and evolving environmental protocols and regulations.

ClimbandMine wrote: And I fully believe that recreation and mining can completely coexist. Heck, they have in that area - there's been mining down there for 100 years.

It kind of depends on what the word "coexist" means.

The only reason that recreational/cultural activities have taken place at Oak Flat and the nearby lands is because of the historical non-subsiding technique of mining in the old Magma Mine AND the preserving effects of Public Land Order 1229 that set it aside from mining activity in 1955. You are making a reference to what most think of as the honest and traditional meaning of "coexist[ence]" in this way.

Based on RCM's publicly disclosed mine concepts and impacts, their proposal necessitates the destruction of much of the Oak Flat surface or likely precludes unfettered public access entirely. Sure, there might be time-limited access until the real work and impacts begin but this is not "coexistence" in the traditional and historical sense for those particular lands.

In the least it is disingenuous and misleading, if not outright false political spin for private gain (not by you perhaps but certainly by others advocating on behalf of RCM), to suggest that traditional public access for recreational/cultural activities will continue to coexist on any land that is above the mine, in the fracture zone, or anywhere on current public lands that RCM privatizes and deems to be too dangerous or inconvenient for public access.

At some point, the redefining and repackaging of the public's "coexistence" footprint into time-limited, private, and perhaps unilaterally revocable agreements reduces down to what it really is; elimination of public use and access for a unique, federally protected (PLO 1229), and valuable recreational/cultural asset, plain and simple, at least in my view.

Fred

It is important to pick your battles. Ask some questions:

-What was the significance of the area to climbing before the controversy arose?

-Are there other mining threats to more important, more well traveled climbing areas that we should devote resources to?

The really big thing here is to think about climber's resources to defend, and if we spend all the money saving this area, will we be to drained to defend threats in other areas.

Environmentally Arizona has low biodiversity and bio-density compared with Eastern states. Mines in the east certainly cause a much greater impact on environment than in desert areas.

When we look at the money used to fight oil companies in Alaska in wasteland tundra, it is sad to know that meanwhile in Ecuador we are loosing the most valuable rainforest on the planet to oil companies, forest with in some cases 2000 different species of trees in ONE acre. So we save some Caribou at the expense of tens of thousands of species in eastern Ecuador.

right...because if we drill in Alaska and mine in Arizona that definitely will stop drilling for oil in Ecuador and mining in West Virginia??? I get what you are saying, but I don't think they are so related. Also just because there is lesser biodiversity doesn't mean we shouldn't protect it.

I'm opposed to most of this environmental destruction because most of the money goes to executives, there are alternatives to oil and new mines, and maybe if there was less raw "material" available - prices went up - companies might look at alternatives/recycling/less consumption etc.

Having said that I did visit an aluminum mine in Australia and they seemed to do a decent at restoration after the mining was over. At least from the little I saw. Not sure if Resolution is going to do the same, but seems hypothetically possible with certain types of mining to be environmentally responsible. Takes a company that looks at more than the profit margin though.

Mike,

Suggest you look up "Biodiversity Hospots". There are a number in Arizona, including Dragoons (Cochise Stonghold), Chiracahuas, Catalinas, Santa Rita, and Rincons. There are no such hotspots on the East Coast. You are correct that you should pick your battles, this is one.

Cheers,

John.

Paul Hunnicutt wrote: Not sure if Resolution is going to do the same, but seems hypothetically possible with certain types of mining to be environmentally responsible. Takes a company that looks at more than the profit margin though.

Not this company. They are trying their hardest to get a land swap before a NEPA(National Environmental Policy Act) study. From what I understand, no mine has ever done this. The mine will use approximately the same amount of water as the city of Tempe. Tempe is home to ASU and upwards of 165,000 people.

Where's that water going to come from? We are already sucking the Colorado River dry as it is.

Where's the waste water going to go? Into our groundwater.

Where will the waste tailings go? Sky high in a man made mountain just to the Southeast of Phoenix. That just so happens to be the same direction that most of Phoenix's summer dust storms blow in from.

Various endangered species also use this land that Resolution wants to sink into the earth.

Resolution has not shown to be environmentally responsible.

ClimbandMine wrote:How many outdoor industry jobs pay people with high school educations (or less) $60,000 - $100,000 per year or more? Not many. 82,000 $10 per hour jobs suck.

Now I know this does not answer your question(from what I saw reading it quickly), but it might help give you an idea. Check out the link below, page nine in particular. Outdoor recreation employs quite a few more Americans than you probably realize. 6.1 Million jobs.

MikeWh wrote:Environmentally Arizona has low biodiversity and bio-density compared with Eastern states. Mines in the east certainly cause a much greater impact on environment than in desert areas.

lol. right... have you been to Arizona? or the eastern states for that matter?!

You guys should take some of the time and energy you are putting into writing about this issue on this forum and direct it towards writing a letter to Rep. Kirkpatrick and any other senators, congressional reps, local politicians, media outlets, etc. that could make an impact. Follow Geir's lead. I'm not trying to be a dick; this is a genuine suggestion.

I'm just sayin'...

Greeley wrote:You guys should take some of the time and energy you are putting into writing about this issue on this forum and direct it towards writing a letter to Rep. Kirkpatrick and any other senators, congressional reps, local politicians, media outlets, etc. that could make an impact. Follow Geir's lead. I'm not trying to be a dick; this is a genuine suggestion. I'm just sayin'...

Hey Greeley, these guys have been heavily involved in this long before I was. Take a look at some of the years of dialog posted up here on MP regarding this issue. Almost everyone here has been engaging the climbing community, contacting our reps, and attending each public event related to this mine.

and what do ya know, the politicians have their minds made up for them by someone with lots of $$$$

time for some more letters???

what would Edward Abbey suggest?

A friend on FB suggested that the Senators and Congressmen and women should be wearing their corporate sponsorship like a NASCAR racer. Makes perfect sense since Flake, McCain, Gosar and Kirkpatrick all seem to be singing cheap karaoke with lines supplied by RCM and Rio Tinto. It takes some money to be such sycophants!

Their main strategy is to term the land swap a "jobs bill". Smart, call it something else than what it is. RCM has always been about controlling the language. Their number one rule is to never give in on "Block Cave". I suggest at least block cave with continuous backfill.

Of course if a corporation such as them were to actually design a mine that wouldn't cave the surface or leave the tailings to foul the air they'd employ many more people and set the course for better mining methods worldwide. Their proposed techniques sound all modern with the mention of robotics, etc., but the fundamental method is nearly a hundred years old and comes from a day when no one worried about subsidence, waste or environmental footprint let alone the cultural concerns of Native Americans, wildlife, or recreational uses of the land

And by the way, Gosar et al, you all come off as car salespeople who need a deal right now! The copper in the ground at Oak Flat isn't going anywhere. It is like money in the bank. One day there will be a mining company that is forward thinking enough to do it right. RCM isn't that company.

B

MikeWh wrote:It is important to pick your battles. Ask some questions: -What was the significance of the area to climbing before the controversy arose?

You mean besides the fact that the area hosted the world's largest climbing competition for 15 years in a row?

Curt

MikeWh wrote:Environmentally Arizona has low biodiversity and bio-density compared with Eastern states.

As others have asked, have you even been there? The Sonoran desert is very beautiful with many unique plants and animals poised in a delicate balance of survival. A trip to Queen Creek or the nearby Superstition Mountains in spring might leave you with a greater appreciation for the desert than you have currently.

This spot also has great cultural significance to both Native Americans and climbers.

Maybe you know all the resources that are available and exactly how to allocate them, but the fight for this area is strong in these peoples' hearts because they know what they love and that the area is worth it.

It's not like you can simply chide people into doing the correct thing by your metrics, and fighting the good fight in one area may very well lead to a movement that eventually reaches those areas with very little environmental regulation and much greater corporate control that you deem more important.

Fred AmRhein wrote: The only reason that recreational/cultural activities have taken place at Oak Flat and the nearby lands is because of the historical non-subsiding technique of mining in the old Magma Mine AND the preserving effects of Public Land Order 1229 that set it aside from mining activity in 1955. Fred

The early mining at Magma was by underhand cut and fill. This probably made sense due to the nature of the upper orebody as it was veined, and probably higher in grade. But it does not make sense for a large orebody. This from a paper on the restart of Magma in the late 1980's:

"over 1400 employees laid off for two basic reasons: first, as a resu1t of a mine plan that was technically flawed and second, because of very high production costs mainly due to the low productivity from a very high cost work force."

And:
"The plan is to convert the lower portion of the orebody to an open stope longhole blasting method. This method will involve driving an overcut and undercut drift 40 to 50 feet vertically apart. The stope will be drilled down from the overcut drift and blasted. The broken ore will then be trammed with remote control LHD's to ore passes."

Longhole stoping was used from the early 1990's until the mine shut down. The portion of the deposit it was used on was not continuous according to the graphics in the paper. The mining rate was only 1,000 tons per day. No ore grade information was available in the paper.

A much larger, more continuous orebody lends itself to caving. The capital required just to get to the depths this ore is requires payback, which requires certain economies of scale. I'm not discounting methods like stoping, but as I've mentioned I don't know that there is sufficient data at depth to sufficiently evaluate such a method.

I do discount a "tailings filled block cave". I have done enough studies on caving dilution to know that you would ruin the orebody doing thst...

MikeWh wrote:It is important to pick your battles.

It's safe to say climbers have picked this battle knowing full well what is at stake.

I am curious as to why the QCC has not produced any justification to back up their claim that they are the principle representatives of AZ climbers. There is no mention of this or their blanket letter of support on the forums, their website, or their Facebook page.

If they truly represent the bulk of the community they ought to answer to this and provide some documentation supporting their contention. Otherwise they ought to stop making this claim and disclose to our representatives that they do not speak for most climbers.

Until this is addressed I feel that climbers should not cooperate with any of the requirements RCM is placing on us through this "agreement". Doing so will only further the misperception that climbers have acquiesced to RCM's demands.