Resolution Copper - Queen Creek Coalition: News Release

Fred AmRhein wrote: Consider that Oak Flat is a protected dedicated Federal Recreation area (per Public Land Order 1229 in 1955) specifically set aside from mining activities.

End of story. There should be NO mining there.

Protected land is protected land, swapping it away defeats the original intent.

I've contacted guvm'nt about this, anything else I can be doing from up in Flag?

"It's interesting that the oral history you and other in-movers such as that provided by Rep. Gosar in the recent House Hearing is offered as if it overrules and contradicts the oral tradition of the Native Americans who predate the Non-Native culture's tenure by many generations?"

"In-movers"? "Non-Natives"? Give me a break. Every American citizen alive today was born here, just like every American Indian. The American Indian lineage just goes back a generation or three longer than ours before their descendants crossed the pond. They are immigrants just like us - lets not forget that. They just crossed the bridge 8 or 9,000 years earlier. There are even theories and archeological tidbits that suggest they might not have been "First".
So let's tone down the PC bullshit.

ClimbandMine wrote:The American Indian lineage just goes back a generation or three longer than ours before their descendants crossed the pond. They are immigrants just like us - lets not forget that. They just crossed the bridge 8 or 9,000 years earlier. There are even theories and archeological tidbits that suggest they might not have been "First". So let's tone down the PC bullshit.

8000 years is closer to 400 generations.

Geir wrote: 8000 years is closer to 400 generations.

Apaches only moved into the southwest around (maybe) 1000 AD, not necessarily 8000 years ago. The first Spaniards came in around the late 1500s, right?

ClimbandMine wrote:Every American citizen alive today was born here, just like every American Indian. The American Indian lineage just goes back a generation or three longer than ours before their descendants crossed the pond. They are immigrants just like us - lets not forget that. They just crossed the bridge 8 or 9,000 years earlier. There are even theories and archeological tidbits that suggest they might not have been "First". So let's tone down the PC bullshit.

Talk about BS . . .

Firstly, "Every American citizen alive today was born here?"

False, eg., Arnold Schwarzenegger and my neighbor born in England who is now a citizen.

Secondly, "generation or three?"

Umm, take BBeard's numbers, 1000 AD, 500 years before 1492 +/-, 20 years/generation and that makes about 25 generations before the Spanish and about 40 generations before the settling wave of Americans (ca 1800 or so in Arizona)

So, the current Natives had a historical presence probably at least 40 generations before Americans materialized and moved into the Superior/Oak Flat/Top of the World area. I'm kind of thinking this could be considered a rational and acceptable logical conclusion based on actual archeology; not just an innuendo or "tidbit" injected otherwise to undermine or misdirect.

Its rather amazing to see the efforts to trivialize, minimize, and dismiss what are obviously legitimate claims of the Natives by RCM's operatives; it's really entertaining and simply false.

Just my view, no PC intended.

Fred

Davis Stevenson wrote: I've contacted guvm'nt about this, anything else I can be doing from up in Flag?

Spread the word and encourage others to do the same.

ClimbandMine wrote:Thus, I reserve my First Amendment right to harvest copper from Oak Flat.

What? Did you eat lead pain chips as a child or breath in too much mining dust? You're about as ignorant as they come. Folks like you need vets to put you down before you do any more harm to our society.

And just a guess - do you attend your local tea party meetings? Hows the Earl Grey?

Fred AmRhein wrote: Talk about BS . . . Firstly, "Every American citizen alive today was born here?" False, eg., Arnold Schwarzenegger and my neighbor born in England who is now a citizen. Secondly, "generation or three?" Umm, take BBeard's numbers, 1000 AD, 500 years before 1492 +/-, 20 years/generation and that makes about 25 generations before the Spanish and about 40 generations before the settling wave of Americans (ca 1800 or so in Arizona) So, the current Natives had a historical presence probably at least 40 generations before Americans materialized and moved into the Superior/Oak Flat/Top of the World area. I'm kind of thinking this could be considered a rational and acceptable logical conclusion based on actual archeology; not just an innuendo or "tidbit" injected otherwise to undermine or misdirect. Its rather amazing to see the efforts to trivialize, minimize, and dismiss what are obviously legitimate claims of the Natives by RCM's operatives; it's really entertaining and simply false. Just my view, no PC intended. Fred

Annoying when someone misdirects, misinterprets, and posts incorrect facts, isn't it?

'Cause that's what environmentalists have been doing for 40 years.

The Phoenix wrote: What? Did you eat lead pain chips as a child or breath in too much mining dust? You're about as ignorant as they come. Folks like you need vets to put you down before you do any more harm to our society. And just a guess - do you attend your local tea party meetings? Hows the Earl Grey?

OK, give up Cave Rock (oh, wait, too late - we already rolled over to the Indians on that...), don't poach the Totem Pole ('cause we in-mover climbers ALWAYS respect the Indians), and while you are at it stop driving, using your cell phone, computer, and anything else that has copper in it.

Then we'll talk about ignorant.

ClimbandMine wrote: we already rolled over to the Indians on that...

Wow... you are one messed up kitten.

Serisouly - is there a vet in your area? Please go check yourself in for quick euthanasia session.

ClimbandMine wrote: and while you are at it stop driving, using your cell phone, computer, and anything else that has copper in it. Then we'll talk about ignorant.

So without mining this specific copper deposit in the exact way this company wants - the US isn't going to have any more copper? Are you for real??

Whether you respect history, federally mandated protections, or hold anything sacred, the real point is that many citizens want a rational approach to the mine. Regardless of any other factors, there are many people joined together to avoid a tragedy on Oak Flat.

Climb and Mine, if you can suggest a solution that would avoid this tragedy, I welcome it. The question is, would RCM care? I think not.

Letting this corporation take over and destroy this land is bad for the water, air quality and does nothing besides enrich their coffers. True, we will have copper but we leave behind another pile of crap like the ones already growing in the Ray and Pinto mines, for our children.

ClimbandMine wrote: Annoying when someone misdirects, misinterprets, and posts incorrect facts, isn't it? 'Cause that's what environmentalists have been doing for 40 years.

Really?

I'm pretty sure that those advocating for an environmentally impacting proposal (Oil, Mineral, etc., exploration/extraction) mean well; they want to make money, help the US with their "strategic" supplies etc.

But unwatched, unquestioned, and all other stakeholders and protections (PLO 1229) be damned?

I'm kind of thinking that's why NEPA, the EPA, etc., came into being . . . history is replete with examples of hazardous, unhealthy, and publicly damaging events that could have been avoided (and are on a daily basis) because there was and are oversight by not just agencies but by concerned and independent citizens.

Given what appears to be your penchant for rugged individualism, I would think that this sort of personal power would be appealing?

Regardless, this legislative proposal pretty much guts the evolved, conventional NEPA process that would come into play for the Oak Flat lands; not only does NEPA guarantee individual participation and input but demands it and the apparent override of it by Gosar's bill should concern just about anybody on any side.

Gosar's bill sets bad precedent in my view and it just gets worse with every rewrite by RCM' legislative consultants.

Just my view.

Fred

ClimbandMine wrote: OK, give up Cave Rock (oh, wait, too late - we already rolled over to the Indians on that...), don't poach the Totem Pole ('cause we in-mover climbers ALWAYS respect the Indians), and while you are at it stop driving, using your cell phone, computer, and anything else that has copper in it. Then we'll talk about ignorant.

Public Land Order of 1955 was put in place so that you and I could specifically recreate on the Oak Flat parcel and to protect this unique and valuable area from the encroaching mining operations. As I mentioned before, Oak Flat was specifically protected from acquisition under the mining laws; never before has a so protected USFS land been handed over to a firm to mine it. This is a bad precedent for any so situated national public lands in my mind.

I know of no actions by Native Americans with respect to the Oak Flat issue that will keep you from going onto that land.

The Cave Rock issue was taken up by the Access Fund; they lost their battle but they put up a good fight. Cave Rock was not set aside as a dedicated recreational area as Oak Flat is so in a way it was a different situation of sorts.

At least that is my understanding; perhaps somebody else can help with the details for you.

Hope it helps.

Fred

Fred AmRhein wrote: Really? I'm pretty sure that those advocating for an environmentally impacting proposal (Oil, Mineral, etc., exploration/extraction) mean well; they want to make money, help the US with their "strategic" supplies etc. But unwatched, unquestioned, and all other stakeholders and protections (PLO 1229) be damned? I'm kind of thinking that's why NEPA, the EPA, etc., came into being . . . history is replete with examples of hazardous, unhealthy, and publicly damaging events that could have been avoided (and are on a daily basis) because there was and are oversight by not just agencies but by concerned and independent citizens. Given what appears to be your penchant for rugged individualism, I would think that this sort of personal power would be appealing? Regardless, this legislative proposal pretty much guts the evolved, conventional NEPA process that would come into play for the Oak Flat lands; not only does NEPA guarantee individual participation and input but demands it and the apparent override of it by Gosar's bill should concern just about anybody on any side. Gosar's bill sets bad precedent in my view and it just gets worse with every rewrite by RCM' legislative consultants. Just my view. Fred

Because NEPA is GREAT and never corrupted? Just like the rest of government is totally infallible (cough)? What kind of scientist writing a critical report doesn't even go to site? Oh right, one from the EPA.

"Although EPA’s ‘hypothetical mine’ is sited at the location of the Pebble deposit, BBWA authors continue to refuse to consider the most extensive scientific data set available on the region – environmental baseline data collected by the Pebble Limited Partnership (the Pebble Partnership” or “PLP”) at a cost of some $150 million. The failure to fully consider PLP’s environmental data is contrary to EPA’s own guidelines for data quality, and is compounded by the fact that BBWA study authors have never set foot on the Pebble Project site.

“The Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment process has truly become the theatre of the absurd,” Thiessen said. “Rather than waiting for the Pebble Partnership to submit a proposed development plan for consideration by federal and state regulatory agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), something that is expected to occur this year, EPA has invented its own hypothetical mine, it has continued to ignore modern mine engineering practices and regulatory requirements, it has shunned the best available scientific and environmental data at its disposal, and it has created a public and peer review process designed to minimize scientific scrutiny of its work."

But you all will just cry "oh you can't trust the evil mining company".

Read the rest of the press release. Critical reviews were from the NGO's against Pebble... kitco.com/pr/1738/article_0…

manuel rangel wrote:Whether you respect history, federally mandated protections, or hold anything sacred, the real point is that many citizens want a rational approach to the mine. Regardless of any other factors, there are many people joined together to avoid a tragedy on Oak Flat. Climb and Mine, if you can suggest a solution that would avoid this tragedy, I welcome it. The question is, would RCM care? I think not. Letting this corporation take over and destroy this land is bad for the water, air quality and does nothing besides enrich their coffers. True, we will have copper but we leave behind another pile of crap like the ones already growing in the Ray and Pinto mines, for our children.

Would you approve of solution mining with sulfuric acid?

That would result in no subsidence, no tailings, and no impact to air. That ticks all your boxes.

Let's put it in simple terms. At $3 / pound, ore at 1% copper is worth $60 per ton in the ground. Not much for an underground mine. I've worked on a few studies lately with in-place values of $250 to up to $2,000 per ton.

Cut and fill mining runs $150 / ton - would you loose $90 / ton for your company?

Stoping mines run $60-80 per ton operating cost. Would you loose all the capital and possibly $20/ton on top of it for your company?

Didn't think so. That's why Rio is looking at block caving. Sublevel caving still leaves a crater.

Solution mining might be feasible, but I doubt has ever been tried at that depth. I bet you guys would LOVE putting acid in your groundwater. Or not.

ClimbandMine wrote: Because NEPA is GREAT and never corrupted? Just like the rest of government is totally infallible (cough)? What kind of scientist writing a critical report doesn't even go to site? Oh right, one from the EPA. "Although EPA’s ‘hypothetical mine’ is sited at the location of the Pebble deposit, BBWA authors continue to refuse to consider the most extensive scientific data set available on the region – environmental baseline data collected by the Pebble Limited Partnership (the Pebble Partnership” or “PLP”) at a cost of some $150 million. The failure to fully consider PLP’s environmental data is contrary to EPA’s own guidelines for data quality, and is compounded by the fact that BBWA study authors have never set foot on the Pebble Project site. “The Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment process has truly become the theatre of the absurd,” Thiessen said. “Rather than waiting for the Pebble Partnership to submit a proposed development plan for consideration by federal and state regulatory agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), something that is expected to occur this year, EPA has invented its own hypothetical mine, it has continued to ignore modern mine engineering practices and regulatory requirements, it has shunned the best available scientific and environmental data at its disposal, and it has created a public and peer review process designed to minimize scientific scrutiny of its work." But you all will just cry "oh you can't trust the evil mining company". Read the rest of the press release. Critical reviews were from the NGO's against Pebble... kitco.com/pr/1738/article_0…

I appreciate the input on areas other than Oak Flat but the topic is really Oak Flat and the legislation to privatize it.

My personal experience as an individual interacting with NEPA processes has been such that I've at least been heard and had my comments acted upon.

One of the major concerns with the legislation that seeks to privatize your dedicated recreational area (since 1955 per PLO 1229), is that HR 687 and its sister bill in the Senate, S339, (easy to remember since 3x3=9) appear to potentially override the public input process (NEPA) for Federal lands impacted by a proposal.

This is but one issue of course; another being the use of a dedicated recreational area protected from mining for mining purposes and the precedent this potentially sets (There's that bothersome, thorn in the toe Public Land Order 1229 again . . .).

And another, the use of Native Sacred lands and apparent lack of true and meaningful consultations with indigenous people about such . . . another confounding little legal legacy detail . . .

Maybe you should contact your congressman or woman about your concerns about the EPA, etc., on those other issues, or maybe you already have?

Fred

ClimbandMine wrote: Would you approve of solution mining with sulfuric acid? That would result in no subsidence, no tailings, and no impact to air. That ticks all your boxes. Let's put it in simple terms. At $3 / pound, ore at 1% copper is worth $60 per ton in the ground. Not much for an underground mine. I've worked on a few studies lately with in-place values of $250 to up to $2,000 per ton. Cut and fill mining runs $150 / ton - would you loose $90 / ton for your company? Stoping mines run $60-80 per ton operating cost. Would you loose all the capital and possibly $20/ton on top of it for your company? Didn't think so. That's why Rio is looking at block caving. Sublevel caving still leaves a crater. Solution mining might be feasible, but I doubt has ever been tried at that depth. I bet you guys would LOVE putting acid in your groundwater. Or not.

Troll. Solution mining targets secondary copper minerals. My understanding is that the bulk of RCM's orebody is primary copper sulfide minerals which are not amenable to solution mining. C&M is using this concept to tweak readers of this thread. If on the other hand he knows that this is not the case, then I wish he'd reveal more because RCM has a history of keeping technical facts to themselves. No doubt they have found zones of secondary copper mineralization, but how much is a big question. C&M works in the industry, so please reveal more!

All the above figures support not mining this valuable mineral resource because they indicate that copper is underpriced with respect to the environmental and cultural cost of trashing the Oak Flat area.

The history of mining is replete with such scenarios. Take tailings for example. It is the waste from mountain sized orebodies of 1% copper ore ground down to fine sand in order to separate the copper minerals from the host rock to be sent to the smelter. That 99% goes to tailing ponds. Historically the side walls of tailings have a slope at the angle of repose. This is so steep that when they get flooded they slide and it is very difficult to grow anything on them to keep them from sliding. Did this figure into the thinking of the miners who made them? It didn't. That would have made the mining process too expensive, yet vast quantities are being spent in this attempt now. This begs the question of if the copper mined in the 1900's was economic in the long term. Obviously not as the companies are still paying for it.

RCM is very adept at spreading the idea that they practice sustainable principles but they really don't. It is just a word to them.A decade plus into this project and they have completely failed to give a full description of what their proposal will do to the landscape in terms of subsidence, tailings, areal extent (think ASARCO discovery just to the east) and water impacts. They have however, spent millions on PR and lobbying so that politicians and ideologues line up and utter their talking points and scripts.

Let this orebody sit in the ground until it can be mined in an enlightened way. If miners ran the high tech industries we'd still be using floppy disks and lack the internet. Environmental and cultural constraints should merit the same consideration and importance as technical constraints.

ClimbandMine wrote: Let's put it in simple terms. At $3 / pound, ore at 1% copper is worth $60 per ton in the ground. Not much for an underground mine.

RCM's proposal is not just about copper; don't forget that they have divulged that it contains Molybdenum in significant quantities to mention. It doesn't appear to add a lot to the total sum but it does add a bit.

From their 2011 "Project Profile:" (see resolutioncopper.com/wp-con…)

* In March 2010, Rio Tinto, Resolution Copper’s parent company, reported an Inferred Resource of 1.624 billion tonnes of ore at a grade of 1.47 percent copper and 0.037 percent molybdenum. An Inferred Resource assumes there is a continuous mineralized body present based on geological evidence, but the actual mass of the mineralization is still unproven.

It also appears that your calcs would be about 50% off in terms of yield for the copper, 1.47% vs. 1.0%; this seems significant to the topic at Oak Flat. Based on RCM's own numbers and your assertions it would appear that "Stoping mines" would be a consideration?

Fred

The Phoenix wrote: So without mining this specific copper deposit in the exact way this company wants - the US isn't going to have any more copper? Are you for real??

So you are saying you would rather get your metals from places like the Congo where there are no environmental protections and the profits are used to fuel civil war?

Are you for real?