Continue with onX Maps
Continue with Facebook
Saving Oak Flat- does anyone care? -C&M throwdown-
Follow topic:
|
Climb and Mine... the fact of the matter is you and your firm want to alter and irreparably destroy federally protected lands to make a buck at everyone else expense. It doesn't take an idiot to see this... most folks don't get duped by bogus studies and numbers you or your employer put forth. |
Concerned Climbers of Arizona wrote: Everyone reading this thread can decide for himself whether all the scientists, researchers, statisticians and others at the EPA have produced a flawed study--or whether it's more likely that the mining industry employee posting on this forum is once again misrepresenting the facts.They can decide for themselves. The study wasn't produced by the EPA. It was produced by Earthworks - a "nonprofit organization ... Evolved from the work of two organizations: the Mineral Policy Center and the Oil and Gas Accountability Project." Who is misrepresenting facts? The readers of this forum should look at that earthworks link, and decide for themselves what the truth is. |
The Phoenix wrote:Climb and Mine... the fact of the matter is you and your firm want to alter and irreparably destroy federally protected lands to make a buck at everyone else expense. It doesn't take an idiot to see this... most folks don't get duped by bogus studies and numbers you or your employer put forth. The EPA and other regulators don't make any more money one way or the other so they have no skin in the game as it were. . . you sir are a vastly different story and this forum has exposed the manipulative nature of both you and your company from whom you so dearly suckle from the teet.I don't work for RIo Tinto, RCM, and have never consulted for RCM. I have no personal financial stake in the mine. How am I manipulating anything? Because I can read and add, and then tell something for what it is? Sorry if you don't like reality. |
ClimbandMine wrote: Ah, math, it sucks when it doesn’t support your case. The study IS flawed and the authors bungled the primary basis for their conclusions. They state that water treatment for the listed mines is on the order of $57-67 Billion per year – for treatment of 17-27 Billion gallons per year. Looking at the first 20 mines on their list, typical treatment costs were $0.001 to $0.008 per gallon per year – less than ONE CENT per gallon. For instance the Captain Jack mine – a historic mine from the 1800’s in Colorado had an annual operating cost of $28,500 to treat 26.3 million gallons – ONE TENTH OF A PENNY per gallon per year. The average of the mines I calculated (the first 20 or so) was $0.0036 per gallon. Looking at the table and summing up the operating costs, the total is somewhere in the range of $50-70 MILLION per year. I guess $57-67 MILLION per year for all of those mines across the West, old historic ones, existing mines with fully funded reclamation budgets, and proposed mines that don’t exist, wouldn’t quite make the impact on people or regulators even if it is the real cost. But, I guess a big scary impact is more important than being remotely correct to some people. So, do you have any REAL concrete, recent examples? Preferably not from hundred-plus year old mining districts?C & M, So, meanwhile, back in Congress, RCM's legislation sits and provides a potential legal detour around the NEPA process for their massively impactful proposal. More pertinent to Oak Flat, how does their legislation aid the citizenry in understanding more fully the consequences of allowing an area protected from mining for generations to be essentially destroyed by a minig process? Fred |
ClimbandMine wrote: I don't work for RIo Tinto, RCM, and have never consulted for RCM. I have no personal financial stake in the mine. How am I manipulating anything? Because I can read and add, and then tell something for what it is? Sorry if you don't like reality.While we're on the topic of FACTS... Lets start with some facts about YOU obtained from the internet (public record): ClimbandMine aka David M. Loring Current Work: Staff Engineer, Mine Ventilation Services , Inc. Previous Work: ventilation/project engineer with Westinghouse TRU Solutions at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, NM. Education: Colorado School of Mines You also currently serve as the Vice Chair in the M&E Underground Ventilation Unit Committee in the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc. Souces: summitpost.org/users/climba… zoominfo.com/p/David-Loring… smenet.org/uvuc/ Your manipulation is to get folks caught up in these little inconsistencies in numbers hoping they forget that you and these firms are advocating to destroy federally protected lands for private profit. That's reality Mr. Dave Loring... I see you're in Rado these days. Why is it so essential (to you) for this mine to destroy land that is was specifically designated as federally protected? Clearly the impact will be massive and the land irreparably altered. it's funny how you argue the inconsistency in numbers so well but when faced with a question about morals and destruction of the current environment all you do is ignore, ignore, ignore.  |
The Phoenix wrote:Climb and Mine... the fact of the matter is you and your firm want to alter and irreparably destroy federally protected lands to make a buck at everyone else expense. It doesn't take an idiot to see this... most folks don't get duped by bogus studies and numbers you or your employer put forth. The EPA and other regulators don't make any more money one way or the other so they have no skin in the game as it were. . . you sir are a vastly different story and this forum has exposed the manipulative nature of both you and your company from whom you so dearly suckle from the teet.+1 u knoit The Phoenix wrote: Your manipulation is to get folks caught up in these little inconsistencies in numbers hoping they forget that you and these firms are advocating to destroy federally protected lands for private profit. That's reality Dave... smile.yeah doggys ClimbandMine wrote: They can decide for themselves.sure we'll vote- majority rules right? (right up until the lobyists check-in then BS + $$ = Rules) |
ClimbandMine wrote: The study wasn't produced by the EPA. It was produced by Earthworks - a "nonprofit organization ... Evolved from the work of two organizations: the Mineral Policy Center and the Oil and Gas Accountability Project." Who is misrepresenting facts?We provided two sources, the actual EPA study and the Earthworks link. You are once again misrepresenting facts. Stating that you don't work for RCM is completely irrelevant. You still owe your livelihood to mining and are nothing more than a blatant shill for the industry. |
Concerned Climbers of Arizona wrote:shill for the industry. shillthat's the word I was lookin'4 thanks!shill [shil] 1.pretended customer or gambler: an accomplice who pretends to be an interested customer or gambler in order to lure others into buying or gambling 2.self-interested promoter: somebody who promotes somebody else or makes a sales pitch for something for reasons of self-interest 3.be a shill: to be or work as a shill. A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Shill typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). |
|
After you're done pontificating the moral dilemma of destroying federally protected lands to put a buck in your pocket, feel free to let us know about any contracts the mining companies have with your firm (Lets start with Rio, etc, etc.) |
|
Kirra, you are classy... |
ClimbandMine wrote:Kirra, you are classy...That's the best you got - what no flashy numbers, no distractions? Can't even muster up an actual response David? You sir are a piece of work... I'm surprised you even know what classy means. Right now you seem like the filth that has ruined and destroyed the great lands in our country and your best answer is... nothing. Maybe you should grab a towel and mop up the pool of ignorance surrounding you. |
The Phoenix wrote: Your manipulation is to get folks caught up in these little inconsistencies in numbers hoping they forget that you and these firms are advocating to destroy federally protected lands for private profit. That's reality Mr. Dave Loring... I see you're in Rado these days. Why is it so essential (to you) for this mine to destroy land that is was specifically designated as federally protected? Clearly the impact will be massive and the land irreparably altered. it's funny how you argue the inconsistency in numbers so well but when faced with a question about morals and destruction of the current environment all you do is ignore, ignore, ignore.Thanks, Phoenix, for the great posts. Cheers! The bolding in the above quote is my edit, and perfectly states why Climb and Mine / Dave Loring should just be ignored or flamed. Many of the posters on this thread try to discuss this issue in a constructive manner where facts are presented and opinions can be formed. Climb and Mine / Dave Loring just wants to win an argument by any means possible. By entering into discussion with him, you are tacitly validating his standing as a person who has something to add to this discussion. He does not. In an effort to maintain the polite nature of this thread, I will only say that Climb and Mine / Dave Loring's posts have almost no value. He adds little to this conversation and should be ignored. |
|
David Loring-showing us what true class is!? |
|
Keep it civil please. Socrates had a lot more impact with his arguments by keeping to the high road then stooping to the low, even when the ramifications were affecting his very life. |
|
9 hours since a Climb and Mine / Dave Loring post. That is a good thing! |
NC Rock Climber wrote:9 hours since a Climb and Mine / Dave Loring post. That is a good thing!I busted out laughing at work when I read that post. That was some seriously good investigative work. |
NC Rock Climber wrote:22 hours since a Climb and Mine / Dave Loring post. Like a cockroach scurrying back under the refrigerator when the light is turned on, Dave Loring has decided not to address the facts brought up in The Phoenix's posts. Ah, facts, it really sucks when they prove you to be a shill and a hypocrite.I have been censored twice Climb & Mine sent a threatening email to me equating to worse that an insect. The admins here apparently have no taste for his whining & bitching to have me censored as I posted up his bad behavior. I will forward his hate-mail to anyone who wants to witness his penmanship. Apparently his feelings are hurt and he is too embarrassed to allow it now to be seen here on MP C&M -MP may own this website but they don't own the Internet. This email will most likely follow you ...forever... until you apologize |
|
I've seen both censorships. |
nicelegs wrote:I've seen both censorships....My guess, he's threatening MP with litigation.thanks legs -faulty litigation most likely but who needs any at all Mr. Loring should aquaint himself to the fact that in Rado we have a few laws to protect citizens against folks who behave badly. It's likely he has already lost his case.. TITLE 18, ART 9, PART 1. PUBLIC PEACE AND ORDER C.R.S. 18-9-111 ~ Harassment |
|
Because this has devolved into a personal squabble, this thread is now locked. It's fine to talk about the issues, but some of you have a hard (impossible) time keeping it there. |
