Route Guide - iPhone / Android - Partners - Forum - Photos - Deals - What's New - School of Rock
Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Climbers want the Resolution Copper mine in AZ?
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 1 of 3.  1  2  3   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
By BlueFrog
Apr 15, 2013

This month (April 2013), Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick did an interview with a Phoenix PBS show called Horizon. In the video link below, you can hear her comments about the proposed copper mine at Oak Flat beginning at the 5:30-minute mark and ending around 10:00.

Kirkpatrick announces in the interview that climbers support the mine proposal. Because of the Queen Creek Coalition's deal with Resolution Copper, Kirkpatrick has no problem saying that climbers want the mine instead of a scenic, federally-protected climbing area.

Truth be damned!

PBS video Kirkpatrick talks Resolution Copper


FLAG
By BGBingham
Apr 15, 2013
night ice

BlueFrog wrote:
Truth be damned!


She knows better and it is obvious that she operates from Resolutions playbook. How anyone studying this issue wouldn't know about climber opposition and concern is mind boggling. She is certainly aware of this and her phrasing proves it, as it states a fact (an agreement about a particular area) while leaving the impression that all climbers are happy with how RCM wants this to go down (thanks for this confusion QCC, hope you're enjoying your monetary reward).

This is standard operating procedure for Resolution. For instance, Resolution makes the claim that there will be very little "waste" from the mine knowing full well that the average consumer/politician of their information is comforted by this but unaware that they are using the term only for the mining of development rock. It does not include the mountain sized piles of tailing that the lay person would naturally and reasonably consider waste.

Also note how easily she skirted the question of local disagreement of many Superior citizens. Way easier to cast all the locals as "miners" and therefore all in favor of the mine.

I was up on the property two weeks ago and the extent of drilling obviously points to RCM having much bigger plans than most are aware. In fact, Resolution owns the original 1970's ASARCO discovery (claims/mineral rights) of a whole other ore-body underneath and to the east of Gaan Canyon. Implementation of just their current design will take out the canyon as the resultant Glory Hole will be deeper than the canyon and adjacent to it. Add in the ASARCO discovery and Gaan Canyon's fate is sealed and the mountains to the east toward Top of the World will be impacted as well. This information is being contained.

Our politicians should be protecting our interests rather than being shills for mining corporations. They should be holding the mining company to a higher standard that pushes them into developing new bulk mining methods that don't cave the ground and leave vast piles of tailing (waste) to pollute the environment.

It is a bigger ore deposit complex than has been publicly announced. It has amazing value. It is not going anywhere. It should be mined with 21st century methods, not an early 20th century mindset that will leave future generations holding their nose and wondering how this could have happened.

[4th paragraph edited for clarity. 4/16/13]


FLAG
By Geir
From Tucson, AZ
Apr 16, 2013
Toofast

Effing politicians! I will be contacting her office in the next 24 hours as should every climber who has a problem with this. Already two political figures have twisted the truth about where climbers stand on the mine.

CCA and AF, please weigh in on this. And I really hope QCC gets a hold of these clowns and makes it clear that not all climbers agree with them! Shit, climbers don't even know all the specifics of the deal!


FLAG
By manuel rangel
From Tempe, Arizona
Apr 16, 2013
Trying to redpoint The Ugly 11c; steeper than it looks and the rock is scary in spots but good enough.

She is saying what she's been told. A typical tactic, say something often enough and loud enough and people will consider it the truth if they don't know better.

QCC bought into RCM's ploy and is now their tool. They have a voice and we do too. Unfortunately, ours is not as loud.

I agree with Brent, we need to look at this mine with a modern view towards sustainable mining and operations that coexist with the people living in Superior and the valley.


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Apr 16, 2013

Geir wrote:
And I really hope QCC gets a hold of these clowns and makes it clear that not all climbers agree with them! Shit, climbers don't even know all the specifics of the deal!


Geir,

Lest we forget, from QCC, Inc's website and their summary of their agreement with RCM:

10.RCM will give QCC a sum of money to be held in Trust for expressed purpose of QCC achieving its mission of maximizing rock climbing in the Queen Creek region and will be expressly linked to the development of climbing access and areas outside of the Mine Zone.

11.QCC will still receive the monetary compensation if the Land Exchange does not occur but RCM proceeds with a valid Mining Plan of Operations to produce ore.

12.QCC will assist RCM with Public Relations, including providing, from time to time, letters indicating the cooperative working relationship between QCC and RCM.

13.QCC will agree NOT to oppose any future mining plan of operations, environmental impact statement (or alternative formulation of environmental oversight) offered by RCM for a period of ten years.

It is still unknown, at least publicly, if it was the QCC, Inc. that was referenced by Rep. Gosar as the "climbing recreation group from Queen Creek . . . that support this mine" that submitted a letter of support for RCM's legislation that Gosar put into the record during the HR 687 Hearing in March. Also, it's still not known publicly who the "rock climbers" that Kirkpatrick references are.

Perhaps one in the know on one or both will speak up?

Fred


FLAG
By Lindajft
From maricopa, AZ
Apr 16, 2013
The loaf

Geir wrote:
CCA and AF, please weigh in on this.!


Hi Geir,
Well, many from our group have already weighed in, but our opposition to the current land swap is clear. Access Fund's stance is clear.

We need to continue to let our voice be heard.

BTW Oak Flat and surrounding is beautiful right now.

Be well


FLAG
By Lindajft
From maricopa, AZ
Apr 16, 2013
The loaf

FYI
copied from Saving OAK FLAT Campground facebook page



Below is Sen. Ron Wyden's (Chair of the Senate Energy and Resources Committee) letter to a friend of ours who lives in Oregon:

Dear Mr. xxx:

Thank you for writing me about the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act (H.R. 1904). I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As you know, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act (H.R. 1904) was introduced by Representative Paul Gosar in the 112th Congress. This bill, similar to one introduced by Senators Kyl and McCain in the 111th Congress (S.409), facilitates an exchange of public land and private land for the purpose of extracting mineral resources from a 760-acre plot in the Oak Flat Withdrawal Area. The House of Representatives passed H.R.1904, with the vote 235 yeas to 186 nays.

I believe in a multiple use approach to managing our public lands. When considering any transfer of public lands to a private interest, it is important to consider all recreational, environmental and cultural concerns, as well as the economical benefits to local communities. I also believe certain lands need greater protection in order to ensure that the ecological area be accessible and that public health be protected for future generations. Currently, H.R. 1904 is awaiting action in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. As a member of this committee, I can assure you that I will be studying the issue closely. Please rest assured that I will keep your views in mind as consideration of this legislation progresses.

Thank you for keeping me apprised of the issues that are important to you. If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Sincerely,

Ron Wyden
United States Senator


FLAG
By Geir
From Tucson, AZ
Apr 17, 2013
Toofast

Lindajft wrote:
BTW Oak Flat and surrounding is beautiful right now.


It sure is. I climbed there the last two days. The creek in Devil's Canyon awesome right now. There were a lot of climbers on the Totem Pole and in the Glitter Box on Sunday. I'd love to see Kirkpatrick and Gosar in a face-to-face conversation about the exchange with any of those climbers.


FLAG
By manuel rangel
From Tempe, Arizona
Apr 17, 2013
Trying to redpoint The Ugly 11c; steeper than it looks and the rock is scary in spots but good enough.

We have to show our support for keeping the land as is, swap or no swap. Maybe a petition out there someday? Over a weekend?


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Apr 17, 2013

Fred AmRhein wrote:
Perhaps one in the know on one or both will speak up? Fred


It's interesting that Paul Diefenderfer (Dief on Mountain Project) and Erik Filsinger (ErikF on Mountain Project), two people who jump in with their senior views and opinions on access issues for climbing areas quite authoritatively and frequently didn't post up their letter.

Here are the other QCC, Inc., members that didn't speak up (I know that at least one, MC, has been a regular to Mountain Project)

Tina Leadbetter
Mike Covington
John Keedy
Bruce McHenry

Really QCC, Inc., members? You make it sound like you are speaking for all of us and yet you don't let us know what you are up to nor do you let us know about the details of your money deal?

Sounds like you are more than ready, willing, and able to talk to chums in Congress but not the climbing public who will be impacted?

Here's the text of their letter that Paul Gosar submitted into the Congressional Hearing on HR 687 in March:

  • *******************************

Queen Creek Coalition
113 South Rockford Drive
Tempe, AZ 85281

March 11, 2013

To Whom It May Concern:

We are writing concerning S.B. 339 and H.R. 687, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2013.

The Queen Creek Coalition, a federally recognized 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization registered in the State of Arizona, is and has been the principal representative of Arizona rock climbers on the proposed Land Exchange and copper mine project near Superior, Arizona. The Queen Creek Coalition has been involved in negotiations with Resolution Copper since 2004 regarding the rock climbing on lands currently owned by Resolution Copper and the future rock climbing on federal parcels that would become Resolution Copper property in the event the Land Exchange is approved by Congress.

In July of 2012 the Queen Creek Coalition entered into a long term Recreational Use License that represents a fulfillment of those years of negotiations. We are very pleased with the outcome and commend Resolution Copper for its willingness to negotiate a fair settlement..

The Queen Creek Coalition believes that by working with Resolution Copper long term goals can be achieved for the parties. This Recreational Use License allows recreation, rock climbing and mining to co-exist in and around Oak Flat for future generations and provides a key component for a potential sustainable economy.

If you ever would like more information on the Queen Creek Coalition, rock climbing issues, or on our agreement with Resolution, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Paul Diefenderfer, Chair

www.theqcc.org

  • *****************

Fred


FLAG
By CJC
Apr 17, 2013

fuckin sellouts. you don't represent me!


FLAG
By BlueFrog
Apr 17, 2013

I think it may be time to start a petition. I know AZ Mining Reform has one on their website...perhaps that one can be used. When Kiki Peralta testified at the House recently and announced that the Superior Town Council voted to oppose the mining bill, Rep. Gosar angrily pulled out a petition with 400 signatures from people saying they want the mine.

The White House has a petition website I think..

Anyways, there has to be a way to rise above the noise to make it known that climbers are not represented by the QCC.


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Apr 17, 2013

BlueFrog wrote:
climbers are not represented by the QCC.


What's also interesting is that there are at least four other organizations comprised significantly of "rock climbers" that oppose the legislation that will lead to the destruction of the climbing on and around Oak Flat.

1) The Concerned Climbers of Arizona (comprised of much more than 6 people at last count; in fact their public meetings have been known to burst at the seams) (QCC, Inc. on the other hand has secret unannounced meetings and is comprised of 4-6 hand picked friends . . . significantly comprised of and actively dominated by old Az Mountaineering Club Members as they proudly boast on the w/s, EF, JK, BM, and PD, at least)

2) The Access Fund: A national climber's group, probably representing 100,000's to a few million climbers.

3) The American Alpine Club: They just signed onto a letter in opposition to the legislation in March. Representing thousands/tens of thousands of climbers?

4) The Sierra Club (Grand Canyon Chapter of AZ): They have had an active climbing group over the years and represent many concerned about the status of our public lands and our continued public use/access.

By the way, QCC, Inc., did not exist until 2010, and its precursor, the informal and community-based QCC (unincorporated) did not exist until 2008. (Paul and Erik orchestrated a takeover of the QCC (unincorporated) for their new mission to get a monetary deal with RCM in early/mid 2010 and filed corporate papers as they took over)

The letter appears to mislead by omission: In fact it was the Access Fund that was the primary lead on the license agreement as guided by many, many locals involved with the Friends of Queen Creek dating back to at least 2004. Certainly, PD was involved with FoQC as but one person, but so were many, many others who are not in QCC, Inc. (EF was tangentially involved as a long-time force in the Arizona Mountaineering Club)

Implying that they speak as the "principal representative of Arizona Rock Climbers on the proposed Land Exchange" is clearly historically incorrect. Additionally, it seems a well-crafted political statement designed to over-represent and influence. (no compliments intended)

Just my view of course.

Fred


FLAG
By NC Rock Climber
From The Oven, AKA Phoenix
Apr 17, 2013
tanuki

Fred AmRhein wrote:
What's also interesting is that there are at least four other organizations comprised significantly of "rock climbers" that oppose the legislation that will lead to the destruction of the climbing on and around Oak Flat. 1) The Concerned Climbers of Arizona (comprised of much more than 6 people at last count; in fact their public meetings have been known to burst at the seams) (QCC, Inc. on the other hand has secret unannounced meetings and is comprised of 4-6 hand picked friends . . . significantly comprised of and actively dominated by old Az Mountaineering Club Members as they proudly boast on the w/s, EF, JK, BM, and PD, at least) 2) The Access Fund: A national climber's group, probably representing 100,000's to a few million climbers. 3) The American Alpine Club: They just signed onto a letter in opposition to the legislation in March. Representing thousands/tens of thousands of climbers? 4) The Sierra Club (Grand Canyon Chapter of AZ): They have had an active climbing group over the years and represent many concerned about the status of our public lands and our continued public use/access. By the way, QCC, Inc., did not exist until 2010, and its precursor, the informal and community-based QCC (unincorporated) did not exist until 2008. (Paul and Erik orchestrated a takeover of the QCC (unincorporated) for their new mission to get a monetary deal with RCM in early/mid 2010 and filed corporate papers as they took over) The letter appears to mislead by omission: In fact it was the Access Fund that was the primary lead on the license agreement as guided by many, many locals involved with the Friends of Queen Creek dating back to at least 2004. Certainly, PD was involved with FoQC as but one person, but so were many, many others who are not in QCC, Inc. (EF was tangentially involved as a long-time force in the Arizona Mountaineering Club) Implying that they speak as the "principal representative of Arizona Rock Climbers on the proposed Land Exchange" is clearly historically incorrect. Additionally, it seems a well-crafted political statement designed to over-represent and influence. (no compliments intended) Just my view of course. Fred


Based on what I have read here and the folks I have talked with since moving back to AZ in 2011, Fred nails it. The QCC doesn't represent my views, although they claim to do so. I will not go so far as to malign their motives, but I have serious question regarding the specifics of the QCC's compensation from Resolution Copper and what they intend to do with the money.


FLAG
By manuel rangel
From Tempe, Arizona
Apr 17, 2013
Trying to redpoint The Ugly 11c; steeper than it looks and the rock is scary in spots but good enough.

The money is a sideshow. The real problem is their claim to be the principal representative of Arizona rock climbers. That is an absolutely false statement.

As far as I'm concerned, Queen Creek Coalition can claim to be a corporate entity, the latest of many groups that have tried to engage RCM in negotiations concerning Oak Flat. The QCC has endorsed the land swap in exchange for money and other considerations. Many climbers oppose it.


FLAG
By Geir
From Tucson, AZ
Apr 18, 2013
Toofast

I spent two days climbing in QC earlier this week. The weather was perfect and the surroundings were stunning. Reading that letter after this experience was really upsetting.

Several of the people who have posted above have made valid points that I think QCC should answer to. I agree with Manny and Fred, thanks to both for your insights.

For me, it was one thing for QCC to make an unpopular decision believing they were doing the right thing. Under different circumstances that might have been considered admirable. It was entirely different for QCC to present themselves as the primary representatives of Arizona climbers and to lead US lawmakers to believe the rest of us are on board!! What the hell are you thinking???

I am all in for a petition, either online or at Oak Flat combined with a climber party. Maybe we can do both. I will help.


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Apr 18, 2013

Geir wrote:
I am all in for a petition


Here's some more data that's a bit informing and might help with a petition. It's a compare and contrast of the economic and employment impact of the recreational vs. mining industries in Arizona.(sources: outdoorindustry.org and azmining.com)

Economic Impact:

  • Outdoor Industry: ~$5B (2006), ~$10B (2011), anybody else see a trend? (a more recent study that Iíve heard about shows a continued increase from 2011ís numbers)

  • Mining Industry: ~$5B (2011) (historical data from 2006 not found; post up if you have it please)

Employment Statistics:

  • Outdoor Industry DIRECT* employment in AZ: 82,000 (2006), 104,000 (2011)

  • Mining Industry DIRECT* employment in AZ: ~8,0000 (2006), 11,300 (2011) (historical note: ~25,000 in 1975)

Oak Flat contains a vast and rare interconnected network of recreational and cultural resources in terms of historical preservation (PLO 1229), ease of access, existing infrastructure (camping, roads, routes, etc.), very close proximity to an increasingly outdoor oriented metropolis of ~4 Million (and counting) residents, and untold potential economic benefits if properly managed for the local communities. Of course, the actual overall economic impact currently derived from Oak Flat on its own is an unknown (and so is the impact of any lands in the exchange).

We all know that the value of Oak Flat canít be parsed out, will only increase due to the diversity of recreational and cultural significance, and that the distributed and far-flung private lands handed over in the exchange don't add up in comparison.

Asserting that by converting all of this public asset into private money (purported to be between $1 and $2 Million) and unknown and perhaps revocable promises for future fringe access to what isn't destroyed, etc., in a secret, back room deal with RCM belies the factual data and actual trends of the importance of the public's recreational asset on the surface, at least in my view.

Fred

DIRECT* jobs note: Messrs. Gosar, McCain, Flake, and Ms. Kirkpatrick etc., seem to constantly quote the multiplied and inflated 3,700 jobs from RCMís proposed mine when in fact there will be only some fraction, perhaps 1/3 or so that will be direct employment. I present the data as I do in order to compare apples to apples.


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Apr 20, 2013

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. That is the problem with the entire country right now - we are Walmarting the entire country. Raft guides, REI clerks, etc. might be jobs but you can't support a family on them.

Mining, manufacturing, and "old industry" jobs give people with minimal education a shot to give their family a better life. Walmart jobs don't.

This climber supports Resolution because I'd rather have an American making that money than some guy in Africa or Kazakhstan or Peru. And the environmental footprint will be much smaller here than it will be overseas. The copper will make it to market from somewhere.

A true environmentalist would want the global footprint minimized, not just the one in their backyard.


FLAG
By Curt Shannon
Apr 20, 2013

A company that truly believed in sustainable mining would mine the ore in a way that wouldn't compromise the recreational and cultural resources at Oak Flat. That way we could have the economic benefits from the mine (jobs, tax revenues, etc) and have the recreation too. Why push for one over the other, when it's possible to have both?

Curt


FLAG
By Lindajft
From maricopa, AZ
Apr 21, 2013
The loaf

Well said Curt


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Apr 22, 2013

Curt Shannon wrote:
A company that truly believed in sustainable mining would mine the ore in a way that wouldn't compromise the recreational and cultural resources at Oak Flat. That way we could have the economic benefits from the mine (jobs, tax revenues, etc) and have the recreation too. Why push for one over the other, when it's possible to have both? Curt


Well, they laid off all their contractors before they got to the point where they could make that kind of a decision. The first shafts were to get underground to do more drilling.

Stope mines require a much tighter drill spacing to define reserves/resources. As it was the resource was only drilled out to an inferred level of understanding. On the off chance that there is any ore that is high enough grade to stope, it is doubtful that there are enough holes in to know enough about it to put any kind of a plan against it.


FLAG
By manuel rangel
From Tempe, Arizona
Apr 23, 2013
Trying to redpoint The Ugly 11c; steeper than it looks and the rock is scary in spots but good enough.

Resolution Copper has maintained that there is only one way to extract the ore. They refuse to explore, al least publicly, any other method. We have asked that they do exactly as Curt stated above and they have steadfastly refused.

Sounds like it's their way or the highway. Who's unreasonable and unwilling to negotiate? Not us.


FLAG
By The Phoenix
Apr 23, 2013
The Phoenix

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.


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Apr 23, 2013

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


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Apr 24, 2013

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...


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Apr 24, 2013

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.


FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 1 of 3.  1  2  3   Next>   Last>>