Climbers want the Resolution Copper mine in AZ?
|
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. |
|
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] |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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? |
|
Fred AmRhein wrote: Perhaps one in the know on one or both will speak up? FredIt'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 |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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. FredBased 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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
Geir wrote:I am all in for a petitionHere'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:
Employment Statistics:
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 cant 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 RCMs 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. |
|
How many outdoor industry jobs pay people with high school educations (or less) $60,000 - $100,000 per year or more? |
|
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? |
|
Well said Curt |
|
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? CurtWell, 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. |
|
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. |