Oak Flat News

Here are a couple of links to the mining analysis mentioned above, comparing the economics of block cave mining to a hybrid stope and fill/room and pillar method. As I also mentioned before, the spreadsheet should probably be revised to reflect a more realistic price for copper. The copper price used in the original model was actually between $.75 and $1.00 per pound--even lower than what I stated above.

And, as the report notes, the price sensitivity is around $100 million per year for each $.25/pound change in the price of copper. Since copper is currently $3.85/pound, this impact amounts to something like an additional $1.2 billion in profitability per year. As the RCM mine is projected to have a 50 or 60 year life, we're clearly talking about a substantial increase in profits--enough to even make the more expensive (and non-surface destructive) mining design highly profitable.

mining model

spreadsheet

(posted with permission of the Access Fund)

RCM will no doubt claim that this is false and that they must block cave this particular ore deposit, but that's only because congress (supposedly the stewards of our public lands) have thus far completely failed to hold RCM's feet to the fire on this issue and to require them to mine responsibly.

Curt

Fred AmRhein wrote: Have at your mineral wealth below the surface as long as you respect the traditions (recreation, cultural, environmental, etc.) and integrity of the just-as-valuable surface wealth and its protections. Fred

Right. Compromise.

My previous post was not meant as a condemnation of the hard work many of the people in this forum are putting into this ordeal. Nor was I trying to say that their efforts are futile. I am grateful beyond words for the time and effort put forth by so many to maintain access to such great climbing. Thank you.

At times though, while reading though this forum, the profitability of the proposed mining was demonized as if it were profit alone that motivates RCM. The value RCM will get out of mining Oak Flats is wholly dependent on the demand for copper, on the fact that the world and most the people in it NEED copper, and lots of it.

If RCM were to opt for the more expensive and less destructive non-surface mining discussed above, would it be safe for someone to walk on the surface? Would RCM be able to allow access to climbing areas located above the sub-surface mines?

Dustin Payne wrote:If RCM were to opt for the more expensive and less destructive non-surface mining discussed above, would it be safe for someone to walk on the surface? Would RCM be able to allow access to climbing areas located above the sub-surface mines?

Well, that would certainly be the goal if one were to respect the traditional stakeholder uses.

Factually speaking, people walk, hike, recreate, worship, etc., on top of the Magma Mine works all the time. According to RCM, Atlantis lies directly above an active access tunnel, the Never Sweat Tunnel.

On the other hand, a block cave mine is designed to ultimately result in the subsidence of the surface and thus precludes safe, unfettered access.

Fred

Dustin Payne wrote: Right. Compromise.

Dustin,
I'm not sure how long you've been following this issue but RCM/RIO TINTO is not known for it's compromise. There have been groups that have tried to compromise with them, it does not turn out favorable for anyone but RCM/RIO TINTO.

Linda

Just an FYI about the latest Access Fund stance on this legislation per their website as posted under the "News" menu item on 11/10/2011.

Here's an excerpt that seems to detail their view of the legislation:

"Earlier [in 2011], the Access Fund submitted comments on the bill, H.R. 1904. Because provisions favorable to climbers which were included in past versions of the bill have been removed [and] new environmental concerns have emerged (namely the omission of a pre-exchange NEPA process) . . . the Access Fund opposes H.R. 1904 while these issues remain unresolved.

See the entire write-up here AF Oak Flat exchange stance of 11/10/11

The ". . ." is where I edited out the reference to any private deal with any climber's groups because as we all know, the pursuit of that has failed and is no longer in play.

Fred

Fred AmRhein wrote:The ". . ." is where I edited out the reference to any private deal with any climber's groups because as we all know, the pursuit of that has failed and is no longer in play. Fred

do you mean the "hostile takeover" that was forced upon the local community by one of it's own ?

Fred -perhaps NOW we are at another access alert panic moment ?

IMO if anyone cares to save this climbing area, I encourage them now to start putting thoughts down & plan to contact their local representatives VERY SOON as a hearing is coming up in the Senate

..and while ur all at it -ask the Access Fund how they plan to assist now or will they stand idly by while the largest climbing area on record is taken over & destroyed forever by a foreign company because "we were quiet" (as was encouraged 'our friend/s across the isle' who performed the aforementioned hostile takeover)

Evidently Rep. Gosar has been out and about interacting with the public and being pressed by constituents about details of his legislation to hand the protected Oak Flat and surrounding areas over to RCM.

In a letter to the editor of the Arizona Daily Sun, one person writes about his recent experience at such a gathering. Here's an excerpt:

"I wanted to ask about his support for the Resolution Copper land exchange and its potential environmental consequences. After nearly breaking his arm (metaphorically) patting his own back for successfully passing his legislation out of committee, he directly lied to me, stating that the Anglo-Australian mining proposal would pay royalties for the copper extracted and return the mining tailings back 7,000 feet underground (a direct contradiction to his bill). Also, that no reasonable person would accept National Environmental Policy Act review if it was applied to selling one's own residence, so we CD-1 constituents should not require a NEPA review before selling our copper to foreign interests.

I can understand Rep. Gosar is pro-business, but I don't think selling U.S. assets for no return is much of a deal for CD-1, Arizona or America.

See J. Sulenski's entire letter

It is my understanding from some people who have a background in the legislation details pertaining to royalties that that particular section is written such that it is most difficult to ascertain just who will get what, when, how, etc.

Also, it's also my understanding that RCM has made no public, enforceable commitment to put the tailings back into the void they will be creating with their proposed block cave process. This has been a real concern of locals and nearby communities like Apache Junction/Gold Canyon because there is a lot of State Trust land nearby at the base of the Supertitions and they fear that such lands could become convenient sites for mine waste. Maybe not, but one of the big questions has always been and continues to be what RCM will do with about the 98% of the rock that won't be comprised of valuable elements like copper, molybdenum, gold, etc.

The NEPA issue is still a big problem and the description of his answer begs so many important questions.

Regardless, it's difficult to know anything at this point in terms of what process they are proposing anyway because they have had their website offline at this critical time when legislation is in the wings. It's been down since about the first of the year "due to maintenance." (See it for yourself, up or down? RCM website)

It could be an opportunity for some of you web developer types to help them out and get their site back up so the public at least has a glimpse of what they are about (and at such a critical time, just a coincidence of course . . .)

Fred

A friend sent me this:

I just heard from someone very knowledgeable on land swaps and she suggested that:
"when people write, they may wish to say up front they want their letter “placed on the record for the hearing.”

And she also said:
"However, did you try the web form? Often Members of Congress will not accept web comments from people outside their constituency, which they control by asking for your zip code, so you may want to check that out before a bunch of people hit that potential wall, and let people know faxing may be more dependable.....

You may also want to recommend people email David Brooks, Bingaman’s public lands guy, who happens to be from Arizona, David_Brooks@energy.senate.gov. He is very aware of the issues around this exchange."

Since this is a national issue, your zip code really shouldn't matter, but in horse trading Washington I guess it does. Here is a link to those senators that sit on the hearing committee. If one is from your state please contact them: energy.senate.gov/public/in…

here is the U.S.Senate Hearing schedule page for next Thursday and the all important discussion of S.409/H.R.1904

- The Southeast Arizona Climbing Land Giveaway & Destruction Act -

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING:
Thursday, February 9, 2012
09:30 AM
Energy Committee Hearing Room - SD-366

The hearing will be webcast live on the Committee's website, and an archive video will be available shortly after the hearing is complete. Witness testimony will be available on the website at the start of the hearing (HEARING ROOM SD-366)

Hey Kirra, can you let me know what this hearing ultimately will decide (just a quick comment). I have been up in Flag now and away from the crazy Oak Flats circus! Thanks to all of you out there keeping informed and helping this cause.

noburu- thank you for your continued interest wherever you roam. The outcome of this hearing will decide whether a vote will be taken (or not) at some later date
~---~---~---~---~~

my additional .02 ~
This is an important meeting where anyone (public) can be scheduled to express their views (testimony) before these selected committee members of Congress. The goal= try to persuade these folks to vote your way if and when they do vote. Once a vote is scheduled, NO additional comments are considered. At the House of Representatives a vote was recently taken and this bill passed (mostly due to a republican majority) If our Senate also takes a vote and it passes, this land exchange could then head to the president's desk to be signed

hopefully, proper time will be given to all sides of this important issue and not just those that have the $uperPACs working for them. Fly to D.C. and tell your story or send/fax a letter and ask that it be submitted as testimony and it will be as if you were there. Many thanks for your time & assistance

Curt Shannon wrote:Here are a couple of links to the mining analysis mentioned above, comparing the economics of block cave mining to a hybrid stope and fill/room and pillar method. As I also mentioned before, the spreadsheet should probably be revised to reflect a more realistic price for copper. The copper price used in the original model was actually between $.75 and $1.00 per pound--even lower than what I stated above. And, as the report notes, the price sensitivity is around $100 million per year for each $.25/pound change in the price of copper. Since copper is currently $3.85/pound, this impact amounts to something like an additional $1.2 billion in profitability per year. As the RCM mine is projected to have a 50 or 60 year life, we're clearly talking about a substantial increase in profits--enough to even make the more expensive (and non-surface destructive) mining design highly profitable. mining model (posted with permission of the Access Fund) RCM will no doubt claim that this is false and that they must block cave this particular ore deposit, but that's only because congress (supposedly the stewards of our public lands) have thus far completely failed to hold RCM's feet to the fire on this issue and to require them to mine responsibly. Curt

Alright, now that I've actually had time to read the latest on this thread, I have to speak up.

I provided a three- or four-line basis for that spreadsheet model to Curt in 2004, prior to having any practical experience in block caving, and less than 2 years out of grad school. It was an extremely easy, high level analysis (not even close to what we use for a scoping-level study). I don't remember what point I was trying to prove - it was 2 states, 3 jobs, and 8 years ago.

My name appears on work justifying the economics of various mining methods. I did not do this work.

Neither David Chambers nor the Access Fund had permission to use my name on any work, NOR DID THEY SEEK THAT PERMISSION. They should know better, especially since David Chambers puts a PhD after his name. This is a severe violation of professional ethics.

He and the Access fund each owe me a case of beer.

ClimbandMine wrote: Alright, now that I've actually had time to read the latest on this thread, I have to speak up. I provided a three- or four-line basis for that spreadsheet model to Curt in 2004, prior to having any practical experience in block caving, and less than 2 years out of grad school. It was an extremely easy, high level analysis (not even close to what we use for a scoping-level study). I don't remember what point I was trying to prove - it was 2 states, 3 jobs, and 8 years ago. My name appears on work justifying the economics of various mining methods. I did not do this work. Neither David Chambers nor the Access Fund had permission to use my name on any work, NOR DID THEY SEEK THAT PERMISSION. They should know better, especially since David Chambers puts a PhD after his name. This is a severe violation of professional ethics. He and the Access fund each owe me a case of beer.

Thanks, ClimbandMine. Interesting background.

ClimbandMine wrote: Alright, now that I've actually had time to read the latest on this thread, I have to speak up. I provided a three- or four-line basis for that spreadsheet model to Curt in 2004, prior to having any practical experience in block caving, and less than 2 years out of grad school. It was an extremely easy, high level analysis (not even close to what we use for a scoping-level study). I don't remember what point I was trying to prove - it was 2 states, 3 jobs, and 8 years ago. My name appears on work justifying the economics of various mining methods. I did not do this work. Neither David Chambers nor the Access Fund had permission to use my name on any work, NOR DID THEY SEEK THAT PERMISSION. They should know better, especially since David Chambers puts a PhD after his name. This is a severe violation of professional ethics. He and the Access fund each owe me a case of beer.

Actually ClimbandMine, you provided quite a bit more to us than that and up until a couple of days ago people could see exactly what you gave us, as the spreadsheet you provided us was included as a separate tab on Chamber's spreadsheet. Naturally they can no longer view that work of yours--as you insisted that we delete it from the post, which we did.

The spreadsheet that remains is entirely the work of Chambers and contains no content of yours. I do find it somewhat amusing that you now claim you were a mere "n00b" when you provided your inputs to us--because at the time you represented yourself as a mining engineer with direct expertise in block caving. In any event, there in no longer any reference to you in my above post.

Curt

ClimbandMine wrote: My name appears on work justifying the economics of various mining methods. I did not do this work.

Curt,

So, issue over. I guess you have to buy C&M a beer or two? That's a refreshing way to settle a disagreement with a fellow community member; even one that may not agree with you. Well done guys.

Also, it appears that the models remain intact and that C&M's contributions were tangential and inconsequential to the conclusions about the profitability of the concepts?

Lastly, has RCM, to your knowledge, ever produced a public document that shows that an alternative method would not work at Oak Flat? It's my understanding that they aggressively pursue the block cave paradigm, provide details about its implementation, but have not ever addressed or presented alternatives to the concerned public?

Thanks,

Fred

Fred AmRhein wrote: Admin: Can you help some of us understand what prompted you to add this? How'd this come to your attention? And, how do you know it was copied from elsewhere? What's going on in the background here? Please, no PM's. Thank you, Fred

I don't recall seeing a response on this. Please advise

Thanks

Curt Shannon wrote: Actually ClimbandMine, you provided quite a bit more to us than that and up until a couple of days ago people could see exactly what you gave us, as the spreadsheet you provided us was included as a separate tab on Chamber's spreadsheet. Naturally they can no longer view that work of yours--as you insisted that we delete it from the post, which we did. The spreadsheet that remains is entirely the work of Chambers and contains no content of yours. I do find it somewhat amusing that you now claim you were a mere "n00b" when you provided your inputs to us--because at the time you represented yourself as a mining engineer with direct expertise in block caving. In any event, there in no longer any reference to you in my above post. Curt

Curt - I said Practical experience.

The point is that others used my name without my permission.

Thanks for removing it.

ErikF wrote: Thanks, ClimbandMine. Interesting background.

Only if you're interested in negationism.

Curt

ClimbandMine wrote: Curt - I said Practical experience. The point is that others used my name without my permission. Thanks for removing it.

No problem. The links were to documents that were primarily being used internally by the AF. We probably should have taken a closer look at the content before posting the public links.

Curt