Queen Creek needs your Help (again)

Dave Loring wrote: This ain't friggin' rocket science

I believe he was referring to the Econ 101 principals.

It is plainly obvious from your contribution, B(ob), that there were some great thinkers from your generation hard at work in geology. Good show!

Dave Loring wrote: By the way - has this theoretical method been published - anywhere? It does not show up in a google search, nor is it in any of my MassMin proceedings for bulk underground mining.

It was private research done by a Canadian mining firm. As I have written before on MP, it was for the Miami East deposit located underneath the now Freeport Miami Smelter and parts of the town of Miami, AZ. I'd love it if you could unearth it.

SBPC is my term for a method I worked out. I'm working at getting it out there but don't have much time or resources for doing so.

B

BGBingham wrote: These ideas are spreading and getting bigger, not smaller. They may be an important part of the reason that the price of copper is up - and for good reason. More and more people don't want a trashed landscape and environment. B

That's a pretty small part. Price is up primarily due to 4-8% YOY demand growth in China, 2-4% YOY demand growth in India, 0-1% growth in supply - (thus, a 300-350 ton supply imbalance this year for those not keeping up with the math), and the start of at least one copper-backed ETF starting in 2011.

BGBingham wrote:. IMO, a Sequenced Backfill Panel Cave (SBPC) should certainly be a part of the dialogue with a primary goal of no subsidence. B

Please, someone needs to explain how this works to me. There are reasons it has never been attempted or seriously planned. Yes, mining can be rocket science, attending a few meetings doesn't equate to an engineering degree.
Find a book or some papers describing fines migration in caving and mud rushes. After reading about these topics you will realize that the last thing you want to do is start pumping tailings in a cave. Also, using common caving terminology, where do you put this backfill?

BGBingham wrote: It was private research done by a Canadian mining firm. As I have written before on MP, it was for the Miami East deposit located underneath the now Freeport Miami Smelter and parts of the town of Miami, AZ. I'd love it if you could unearth it. SBPC is my term for a method I worked out. I'm working at getting it out there but don't have much time or resources for doing so. B

So ... let me get this straight. You are mad at RCM and the other mining companies because they won't use a mining method that was contrived by a private Canadian company for a deposit that was never mined. The research is in private hands, and was never published, and so does not live in the public domain so engineers can't use it, determine feasibility under practical, applied geotechnical conditions, or otherwise evaluate it...

Riiiiiiight.

Dave Loring wrote: That's a pretty small part. Price is up primarily due to 4-8% YOY demand growth in China, 2-4% YOY demand growth in India, 0-1% growth in supply - (thus, a 300-350 ton supply imbalance this year for those not keeping up with the math), and the start of at least one copper-backed ETF starting in 2011.

Your assessment supports my point of view Dave. The rest of the world is going to be in the same place as us as they industrialize to a greater extent. One hallmark being more concern for their environment.

With increased demand comes an increase in our need to mine in a sustainable way (not RCM PR type sustainable) or we'll have a world landscape that is trashed.

Elders have for much of human history pointed to the longer term. Don't fight it. You'll be there yourself someday. LOL.

B

BGBingham wrote: You'll be there yourself someday. LOL. B

Yup. Uphill both ways. in the snow. :)

Dave Loring wrote: So ... let me get this straight. You are mad at RCM and the other mining companies because they won't use a mining method that was contrived by a private Canadian company for a deposit that was never mined. The research is in private hands, and was never published, and so does not live in the public domain so engineers can't use it, determine feasibility under practical, applied geotechnical conditions, or otherwise evaluate it... Riiiiiiight.

You are the one who sounds mad Dave and a person with lots of rules about how things should be. Take a deep breath and let it go.

Any competent mine engineer could sit down and conceptually design a back fill block cave. I don't have $100k's to play with on this - but based on the amount RCM has put into PR they surely could have.

B

Ben Beard wrote: Please, someone needs to explain how this works to me. There are reasons it has never been attempted or seriously planned. Yes, mining can be rocket science, attending a few meetings doesn't equate to an engineering degree. Find a book or some papers describing fines migration in caving and mud rushes. After reading about these topics you will realize that the last thing you want to do is start pumping tailings in a cave. Also, using common caving terminology, where do you put this backfill?

Sounds like you have exhausted the possibilities Ben. The science of what we can't do.

Glad they didn't apply that attitude to high tech.

B

I heard once that if you have one geologist you have a theory.

Two and it's an argument.

Three geologists you have an AA meeting.

Dobo

BGBingham wrote: You are the one who sounds mad Dave and a person with lots of rules about how things should be. Take a deep breath and let it go. Any competent mine engineer could sit down and conceptually design a back fill block cave. I don't have $100k's to play with on this - but based on the amount RCM has put into PR they surely could have. B

I'm confused, is all. You seem to expect that RCM should be using a mining method that doesn't exist.

If this mining method was feasible and as wonderful as you say it is, it would have been published a loooong time ago. The industry is innovative, as you say. We embrace new ideas and new technologies that make mining safer, more environmentally sustainable, and yes, cheaper.

If this idea was practical it would have made it to SME or MassMin. As Ben alludes to, there are a number of reasons having to do with water, fines migration, dilution, and mud rushes that you would NOT want to do this.

I'd love to see a published report for this magical mining method that you keep pushing for RCM to use. But it doesn't exist in the public domain, apparently.

I don't know what "rule about how things should be" you are talking about. If something is privately held in a file, how do you expect anyone else to use it?

BGBingham wrote:Are you saying that they will present it for review and modification? That would be something. But I haven't heard that. Then why did they eliminate four members from their coalition board with very strong ties in the climbing community? B

Brent,

I have been told that the deal will be presented to the community before it is finalized. I did not ask about the specifics of how this will be done, feel free to call or email them if you would like to know this. They have always been very forthcoming with me.

Let's be precise: The QCC did not eliminate four members. They eliminated one, three people quit. The events leading to this are clearly described in the qcc minutes at theqcc.org. Or, alternatively, you can talk directly to the involved individuals. In either case you will find this is the truth.

I have talked with virtually every member of the QCC both past and present. In all cases each person has been completely approachable, valuing input, and taking into account my opinion as a member of this community. I continue to be in regular, direct contact with the QCC and this has not changed.

Dave Loring wrote: I'm confused, is all. You seem to expect that RCM should be using a mining method that doesn't exist.

Digging deeper, you are on to something. I fully expect RCM to use a mining method that doesn't exist, because what they are attempting has never existed. A block cave has never been done at those depths and temperatures. What better situation could exist to push the envelope of method. Yours and Ben's attitude could easily translate to climbers maxing out at 5.9 because they don't want to back-step, drop-knee, body-tension or any number of techniques that have come about from climbers being challenged.

I don't lay claim to being a mine engineer although I've engineered some things underground that had been declared impossible. Way smaller scale than this, but still.

As to small particle/fluid dynamics/migration, that is another issue that responds to cementing, mixing and who knows what, but until you apply attention to it, it will not happen. Look at the steep sides of huge tailing ponds which are stable because of segregation of not that much difference in particle size of sand.

Again, nearly everything about this project is subject to the drawing board. I want RCM to be more expansive in their approach than they have been. I understand they were saddled with their own internal politics at the get go but a journey through four CEO's should have brought some transformation in thought.

B

mr.dobo wrote:I heard once that if you have one geologist you have a theory. Two and it's an argument. Three geologists you have an AA meeting. Dobo

Or if you have six geologists there are ten opinions.

Or why aren't there any one armed geologists. Because they wouldn't be able to say "on the other hand" (no offense to any real one-armed geologists).

LOL

B

BGBingham wrote: Digging deeper, you are on to something. I fully expect RCM to use a mining method that doesn't exist, because what they are attempting has never existed. A block cave has never been done at those depths and temperatures. What better situation could exist to push the envelope of method. B

But RCM has subjected their engineering to peer review, in quite a number of forums. (Believe it or not). If someone is going to bring innovation to the industry, especially to the degree necessary to succeed at the extremes RCM will experience, peer review and critique is needed to ensure the best possible result.

Why was the private report you keep referring to never published or peer reviewed?
Did the authors not have the confidence in their own product?
Once again, how do you expect RCM to use something held in private hands?

Geir Hundal wrote:Let's be precise:

Geir,

Unfortunately, there are not enough details in that documentation to be precise and they reflect only a partial history from a certain point of view. I mean this in a factual manner, not confrontational. I'd rather not belabor the facts involved and create a continuing distraction, so let's just move on, there's little to win for anybody.

Let's all focus on the continued attention to the importance of having a positive influence on the outcome for Oak Flat and our public climbing resource in and around that designated recreation area. (PLO 1229)

Fred

Fred AmRhein wrote: Geir, Unfortunately, there are not enough details in that documentation to be precise and they reflect only a partial history from a certain point of view. I mean this in a factual manner, not confrontational. I'd rather not belabor the facts involved and create a continuing distraction, so let's just move on, there's little to win for anybody. Let's all focus on the continued attention to the importance of having a positive influence on the outcome for Oak Flat and our public climbing resource in and around that designated recreation area. (PLO 1229) Fred

That sounds great. Thanks Fred.

Dave Loring wrote: But RCM has subjected their engineering to peer review, in quite a number of forums. (Believe it or not). If someone is going to bring innovation to the industry, especially to the degree necessary to succeed at the extremes RCM will experience, peer review and critique is needed to ensure the best possible result. Why was the private report you keep referring to never published or peer reviewed? Did the authors not have the confidence in their own product? Once again, how do you expect RCM to use something held in private hands?

Why doesn't RCM obtain a copy and read it. They certainly have access to it. It was proprietary at the time. A big secret because of property issues - between one mining company owning the deposit and an incorporated town and another mining company owning the surface (which includes a smelter).

Dave, look at my personal bottom line, stated over and over: No subsidence. How many studies has RCM commissioned with this goal in mind? Should they continue to use the term "sustainable" when their mine plan will cave ground that others have used extensively for other purposes including cultural, recreational and attracting an economy based on tourism and retirement close to a metro area that is the fifth largest in the country? A lot of traffic uses Hwy 60 to go to Globe/Miami because of the beauty of the route and they frequent many local business establishments.

Why is the company afraid of a real NEPA process instead of one that they legislatively restrict given a land swap deal?

B

kirra wrote:A Nor would RCC have to post bonds for clean-up upon mine closure or pay any royalties to Uncle Sam like U.S. coal, oil and gas industries"

This is misleading. Sure, RCM wouldn't have to pay royalties to "Uncle Sam", but they would pay the Severance Tax that all other Arizona mines pay into AZ's General Fund.

Ben Beard wrote:they would pay the Severance Tax that all other Arizona mines pay into AZ's General Fund.

Ben,

Can you say a little bit more about this so that myself and others can have a better idea of what this entails and to what extent it benefits AZ's General Fund? Is it a percentage of sales, historical levels, etc., etc.

Thanks in advance.

Fred