Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Saving Oak Flat- does anyone care? -C&M throwdown-
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 1 of 5.  1  2  3  4  5   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By kirra
Feb 26, 2013
Saving climbing access in Oak Flat & Queen Creek has been an ongoing process. I'm starting this thread for the benefit of ALL Climbers in a non-partisan way. Being armed with facts & communicating directly to our Congressional Representatives about our concerns is imo the best way at this time to insure our voices will be heard.

I invite all discussions of past and current legislation & encourage all w/relevant facts & knowledge to contribute..
---- plus ANY NEWS, positive messages or itmes to share in support of SAVING Oak Flat & Queen Creek climbing.

Many thanks in advance to All, Kirra----


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Town of Superior Pulls it's support for the Land Exchange (yay)

"Due to the financial condition of the Town of Superior, I have been instructed to inform you that we
regret that we can no longer express our unqualified support of the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange
and Conservation Act (HR 687 or SB 339, as drafted. )..."


Superior withdraws support - Letter to RioTinto

FLAG
By BlueFrog
Feb 26, 2013
I agree kirra - the best way to be heard is by individually writing to Congress. I've inserted a link below to the list of senators to focus on.

To be clear, the 2013 version of the Southeast AZ Land Exchange and Conservation Act (a carefully-worded title meant to dupe the uninitiated) is the same as the 2011-2012 version.

We can also help by promoting recreation at Oak Flat. Glen Canyon was doomed because few of the public realized it was there before the gov't dammed it.

See this link to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Keep in mind that getting a friend who lives in any of these districts (outside of AZ) to write their senator on behalf of Oak Flat would be worth 10 Arizonans's letters to the same senator.

Senate Energy & Resources Committee

FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Feb 27, 2013
BlueFrog wrote:
To be clear, the 2013 version of the Southeast AZ Land Exchange and Conservation Act (a carefully-worded title meant to dupe the uninitiated) is the same as the 2011-2012 version.


It's not quite the same; a change was made in Section 9 with respect to The Town of Superior's obligations, etc.

Perhaps just a minor detail though it would appear that the bill was changed due to the rescission of the Town Council's support of the Federal Land Exchange Legislation as Kirra pointed out.

HR 687, Oak Flat Privatization Bill of 2013

Fred

FLAG
By BlueFrog
Feb 28, 2013
Thanks for the correction Fred. It's surprising that it's nearly the same bill because I expected Kirkpatrick to introduce some changes that would make it more acceptable to her peers. But she is partnering with Gosar so that explains it.

FLAG
By Ben Watson
From Tempe, AZ
Feb 28, 2013
Rappelling from Mt. Gilbert
Fred AmRhein wrote:
It's not quite the same; a change was made in Section 9 with respect to The Town of Superior's obligations, etc.

Fred, unfortunately upon closer inspection it looks like even section 9 is verbatim to the "Southeast AZ Exchange and Conservation act of 2011". A text-to-text comparison reveals that both bills are exactly the same, minus the headings since the 2011 HR 1904 bill did pass the House (later rejected in the Senate)

Still listed in section 9 (Superior's supposed "interests") are the 3 parcels of land that lie within Superior:
  • 30 acres of 'Federal Parcel-Fairview Cemetery'
  • 265 acres of 'Federal Reversionary Interest-Superior Airport'
  • 250 acres of 'Federal Parcel-Superior Airport Contiguous Parcels'

In fact, all of the land listed for exchange seems to be exactly the same as the previous bill. It's all sugar-coated here as "even exchanges" in this document from Resolution Copper
Land Exchange Parcel Overview - from Resolution Copper

Main take-away: there hasn't been ANY budge by Resolution Copper to negotiate, to win any more favor from the town of Superior or the communities that their business interest directly impacts, or to offer up studies that prove to the public that their brute-force block caving mining techniques wont leave the riparian landscape of Oak Flat / Apache Leap / Devils Canyon in ruin.

Based on the verbiage of our lawmakers re-introducing this bill, this year's tactics are to tug at the heartstrings of everyone affected by economic hardship (read: everyone), inflating the hopes that RC will bring thousands of jobs, decades of steady economic recovery to Superior, and will "help to reduce our foreign dependency on copper". There are already quite a few discussions out there refuting every one of these claims.

I agree with Kirra & BlueFrog that individual letter-writing to our elected officials is an effective means towards shedding light on the irreversible impacts of giving up this protected land to RC. Thanks for posting up those links!

FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Feb 28, 2013
Ben Watson wrote:
Fred, unfortunately upon closer inspection it looks like even section 9 is verbatim to the "Southeast AZ Exchange and Conservation act of 2011".


Ben,

Looks like you are right; somehow I was comparing HR 687 to HR 1904 as introduced, not passed by the House. It looks like a minor change was made in Sec 9 as it moved along the process.

Apologies; glad that others are reading the legislation too.

Fred

FLAG
By Ben Watson
From Tempe, AZ
Feb 28, 2013
Rappelling from Mt. Gilbert
Fred AmRhein wrote:
It looks like a minor change was made in Sec 9 as it moved along the process.

Ah, good catch, Fred. You're right about the change to the section wording as it moved through the house.

Fred AmRhein wrote:
glad that others are reading the legislation too.

Second that.

FLAG
By BlueFrog
Feb 28, 2013
Thanks for clearing up the wording. I agree that because this Exchange bill is the same as the last one that failed, that it's probably part of the long-term strategy that RC is banking on to eventually wear down us obstacles to "progress."

On the other hand, we need to consider that longtime friend of Oak Flat Sen. Bingaman of New Mexico is replaced by Sen. Ron Wyden (Oregon) as the new Chair of the Senate Energy and Resources Committee. There's of course also a new Interior Secretary in Sally Jewell.

Who knows how Wyden will react to RC? On the surface he appears to be an environmentalist (he just signed off on a bill to designate new wilderness areas in OR). But his record also shows that he's something of a pragmatist when it comes to big money.

Kirkpatrick is making RC her priority. One has to wonder why, when it seems that with a Democrat Senate and Obama, chances for this Republican-esque bill appear slim. Perhaps it's just that her and Gosar wanted to give this version of the bill a "bipartisan" appeal to see how it would fare in Washington.

FLAG
 
By kirra
Mar 4, 2013
Fred thanks for posting H.Bill. I noticed a referenced link to Senate Bill on same page but link failed -see correction below.
I'm gonna call it as you do *conservation* title of Bill is absurd.

S.339 - Oak Flat Privatization Bill of 2013

Mahalo Ben et al for comparison on House Bills, similarities may be a time saver for arguments. I wonder if new Senate Bill is similar to prior S.409 ? Maybe no new bills 'cause Rio-daddy is not footing any more bills LOL

I will check back w/additional Resource Committee contact details, eyes 2far back right now. 'RCM Land Exchange Parcel Overview' nu version is lipstick on pork. Will post prior version sans glossy language at some point -PM if any immediate interest

Many thanks to every any & all who assist -Cheers!

FLAG
By Curt Shannon
Mar 5, 2013
HR 687 and S 339 are identical bills.

Curt

FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Mar 9, 2013
"Main take-away: there hasn't been ANY budge by Resolution Copper to negotiate, to win any more favor from the town of Superior or the communities that their business interest directly impacts, or to offer up studies that prove to the public that their brute-force block caving mining techniques wont leave the riparian landscape of Oak Flat / Apache Leap / Devils Canyon in ruin."


The PFS / FS studies can't be made public till its complete, and since the miners got sent home (thanks, by the way - 400 well paying jobs down the tube... happy about that are we?), well, there won't be a complete study for a while, now will there...

Block caving is the opposite of brute force - it is allowing nature i.e. gravity and the rock structure to do most of the work for you. If you guys would listen you might learn something.

Based on my understanding, anyway, Apache Leap is outside the 45 degree crack line. Most caves actually break near vertical to 80-85 degrees. Oak Flat and apache leap are safe based on the graphics i've seen. i don't know where devils canyon is.

FLAG
By Dale Evans
Mar 9, 2013
ClimbandMine is correct here.
In Block caving they gently coax out the underpinnings of the earth's surface leaving an undisturbed and paradise like surface.

Very gently destroyed.
Very gently destroyed.

See images here: No brute force needed

Can we send the 400 out of work miners to Rio Tinto's operation in Utah to deal with the 9000 acres of tailings that are totally improving the health and well being of the locals there?

FLAG
By CJC
Mar 9, 2013
gently destroyed huh

still destroyed though

thanks for posting up kirra

FLAG
By Dale Evans
Mar 9, 2013
Sarcasm Clickety Clackmon.
I thought even you would comprehend that.

Ready to start sending letters to politicians as needed! (Not Sarcasm)

FLAG
By kirra
Mar 9, 2013
Curt Shannon wrote:
HR 687 and S 339 are identical bills. Curt
Thanks Curt !



Does everyone have those letters ready? :)

Here is the updated address info. for the Senate Resources Committee.

I have included a local contact + DC. For additional local addresses please see email contact website link. I will post up some testimony & talking points next for those who want additional facts. Many thanks in advance to all!!!


~~~~~~~~U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 2013 Contact list~~~~~~~~


Senator Ron Wyden (Chairman) - Oregon

221 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C., 20510
Ph: (202) 224-5244 | Fax: (202) 228-2717

911 NE 11th Ave., Suite 630 - Portland, OR, 97232
Ph: (503) 326-7525 | Fax: (503) 326-7528

wyden.senate.gov/contact

~ ~ ~ ~ Democratic Members: ~ ~ ~ ~

Senator Tim Johnson - South Dakota

136 Hart Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510
Ph: (202) 224-5842 | Fax: (202) 228-5765

5015 S. Bur Oak Place, Sioux Falls, SD 57108
Ph: (605) 332-8896 | Fax: (605) 332-2824

johnson.senate.gov/public/inde...
--------------------------------------

Senator Mary L. Landrieu - Louisiana

703 Hart Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510
Ph: (202) 224-5824 | Fax: (202) 224-9735

U.S. Courthouse, 300 Fannin St., Room 2240 - Shreveport, LA 71101
Ph: (318) 676-3085 | Fax: (318) 676-3100

landrieu.senate.gov/?p=contact
--------------------------------------

Senator Maria Cantwell - Washington

311 Hart Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510
Ph: (202) 224-3441 | Fax: (202) 228-0514

915 2nd Ave., Suite 3206 - Seattle, WA 98174
Ph:(206) 220-6400 | Fax: (206) 220-6404

cantwell.senate.gov/public/ind...
--------------------------------------

Senator Bernie Sanders - Vermont

332 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510
Ph: (202) 224-5141 | Fax: (202) 228-0776

1 Church St. 2nd Floor, Burlington, VT 05401
Ph: (802) 862-0697 | Fax: (802) 860-6370
Toll-free: (800) 339-9834

sanders.senate.gov/contact/con...
--------------------------------------

Senator Debbie Stabenow - Michigan

133 Hart Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510
Ph: (202) 224-4822 | Fax: (202) 228-0325

243 West Congress, Suite 550 - Detroit, MI 48226
Ph: (313) 961-4330 | Fax: (313) 961-7566

stabenow.senate.gov/?p=contact
--------------------------------------

Senator Mark Udall - Colorado

328 Hart Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510
Ph: (202) 224-5941 | Fax: (202) 224-6471
Colorado toll-free tel: 1- 877-7-MUDALL (877-768-3255)

999 18th Street, North Tower, Suite 1525 - Denver, CO 80202
Ph: (303) 650-7820 | Fax: (303) 293-0507

markudall.senate.gov/contact/c...
--------------------------------------

Senator Al Franken - Minnesota

309 Hart Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510
Ph: (202) 224-5641 | Fax: (202) 224-0044

60 East Plato Blvd. Suite 220 - Saint Paul, MN 55107
Ph: (651) 221-1016 | Fax: (651) 221-1078

franken.senate.gov/?p=email_al
--------------------------------------

Senator Joe Manchin - West Virginia

303 Hart Senate Office Bldg. Washington DC, 20510
Ph: (202) 224-3954 | Fax: (202) 228-0002

300 Virginia Street, East, Suite 2630 - Charleston, WV 25301
Ph: (304) 342-5855 | Fax: (304) 343-7144
Toll-Free tel: (855) 275-5737 (Residents with 304 or 681 area code only)

manchin.senate.gov/public/inde...
--------------------------------------

Senator Christopher A. Coons - Delaware

127A Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510
Ph: (202) 224-5042 | Fax: (202) 228-3075

500 West Loockerman Street, Suite 450 - Dover, DE 19904
Ph: (302) 736-5601 | fax: (302) 736-5609
Toll-free tel: (877) 668-3368

coons.senate.gov/contact/
--------------------------------------

Senator Brian Schatz - Hawaii

G11 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510
Ph: (202) 224-3934 | Fax: (202) 224-6747

300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 1-340, Honolulu, HI 96850
Ph: (808) 523-2061 | Fax: (808) 523-2065

senate.gov/pagelayout/general/...
--------------------------------------

Senator Martin Heinrich - New Mexico

B40D Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510
Ph: (202) 224-5521 | Fax: (202) 228-2841

625 Silver Avenue,S.W., Suite 130 - Albuquerque, NM 87102
Ph: (505) 346-6601 | Fax: (505) 346-6780

heinrich.senate.gov/contact.cf...

~ ~ ~ ~ Republican Members: ~ ~ ~ ~

Senator Lisa Murkowski (Ranking Member) - Alaska

709 Hart Senate Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510
Ph: (202) 224-6665 | Fax: (202) 224-5301

510 L Street, Suite 600 - Anchorage, AK 99501
Ph: (907) 271-3735 | Toll Free Fax: (877) 857-0322
Toll Free Ph: (877) 829-6030

murkowski.senate.gov/public/in...
--------------------------------------

Senator John Barrasso – Wyoming

307 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510
Ph: (202) 224-6441 | Fax: (202) 224-1724
Toll-free Ph: (866) 235-9553

2120 Capitol Avenue Suite 2013 - Cheyenne, WY 82001
Ph: 307-772-2451 | Fax: 307-638-3512

barrasso.senate.gov/public/ind...
--------------------------------------

Senator James E. Risch – Idaho

483 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510-1205
Ph: 202-224-2752 | Fax: 202-224-2573

350 North 9th Street, Suite 302 - Boise, ID 83702
Ph: (208) 342-7985 | Fax: (208) 343-2458

risch.senate.gov/public/index....
--------------------------------------

Senator Mike Lee - Utah

316 Hart Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510
Ph: (202) 224-5444 | Fax: (202) 228-1168

Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building
125 South State, Suite 4225 - Salt Lake City, UT 84138
Ph: (801) 524-5933 | Fax: (801) 524-5730

lee.senate.gov/public/index.cf...
--------------------------------------

Senator Dean Heller - Nevada

361-A Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-6244 | Fax: (202) 228-6753

Lloyd George Federal Building
333 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 8203 - Las Vegas, NV 89101
Ph: (702) 388-6605 | Fax: (702) 388-6501

heller.senate.gov/public/index...
--------------------------------------

Senator Jeff Flake - Arizona

B85 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510-0305
Ph: (202) 224-4521 | Fax: (202) 228-0515

2200 East Camelback Road, Suite 120 - Phoenix, AZ 85016
Ph: (602) 840-1891 | Fax: (602) 840-0492

6840 Oracle Road, Suite 150 - Tucson, AZ 85704
Ph: (520) 575-8633 | Fax: (520) 797-3232

flake.senate.gov/contact.cfm
--------------------------------------

Senator Tim Scott - South Carolina

167 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510
Ph: (202) 224-6121 | Fax: (202) 228-5143

1301 Gervais Street, Suite 825 - Columbia, SC 29201
Ph: (803) 771-6112 | Fax: (803) 771-6455

scott.senate.gov/contact.cfm
--------------------------------------

Senator Lamar Alexander – Tennessee

455 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510
Ph: (202) 224-4944 | Fax: (202) 228-3398

Joel E. Soloman Federal Building
900 Georgia Avenue, Suite 260 - Chattanooga, TN 37402
Ph: (423) 752-5337 | Fax: (423) 752-5342

alexander.senate.gov/public/in...
--------------------------------------

Senator Rob Portman – Ohio

338 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510
Ph: (202) 224-3353 | Fax: (202) 224-9075

37 West Broad Street, Room 300 - Columbus, OH 43215
Ph: 614-469-6774 | Toll-Free: (800) 205-6446

420 Madison Avenue, Room 1210 - Toledo, OH 43604
Ph: (419) 259-3895 | Fax: (419) 259-3899

Contact Senator Portman
--------------------------------------

Senator John Hoeven - North Dakota

120 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington DC, 20510
Ph: (202) 224-2551 | Fax: (202) 224-7999

US Federal Building
220 East Rosser Avenue, Room 312 - Bismarck, ND 58501
Ph: (701) 250-4618 | Fax: (701) 250-4484

hoeven.senate.gov/public/index...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FLAG
By kirra
Mar 10, 2013
As mentioned, while this current Senate Bill is the same as the House Bill, there are SIGNIFICANT differences between S.409 (111th Session) and the *new* Senate Bill S.339 recently introduced in the 113th Session.

Not that it was ever proper to have negotiated a bribe/pittance payment of $1.25 mil for Oak Flat/Queen Creek, but in the *new* bill this amount has disappeared. Also gone are references to "The Pond" or any exchange other than to trade for 160 acres referred to as "Dripping Springs"

Also absent are ANY references to Climbers, Climbing or Events thereof. Climbing went from being mentioned 6x's in S.409 and having a voice as major stakeholders (which we still are) down to Zero. There was even an allowance in S.409 to permit at least 1 more "Boulder Blast" farewell event (how thoughtful..) -now that is gone as well.

This is what happens when any community allows public land discussions to become private or left in the hands of chairs who do not speak. We have only these 'access chairs' to blame for this broken pile of sticks.

What also concerns me is in Sec.2.Findings & Purpose -this area is now joined together to state 'explicitly' that because of reasons mentioned above, this land exchange is now formally "therefore, in the public interest" -something that some of us have fought long & hard arguing about.

This Land Exchange is only in the interests of large profits for a foreign corporate mining conglomerate who most likely will dig to export abroad.

Is it in the public interest to permanently destroy an un-replaceable recreational resource for the sake of a few temporary and unsustainable Jobs?

I urge everyone concerned about the future of Oak Flat/Queen Creek Climbing to read this bill and note that if this is allowed, it would have an almost IMMEDIATE impact on the Oak Flat withdrawal area as it appears directional drilling may then soon be allowed -even before a proper NEPA review...

-------------------------

SEC. 4. LAND EXCHANGE

(f) Oak Flat Withdrawal Area-

(1) PERMITS- Subject to the provisions of this subsection and notwithstanding any withdrawal of the Oak Flat Withdrawal Area from the mining, mineral leasing, or public land laws, the Secretary, upon enactment of this Act, shall issue to Resolution Copper--

(A) if so requested by Resolution Copper, within 30 days of such request, a special use permit to carry out mineral exploration activities under the Oak Flat Withdrawal Area from existing drill pads located outside the Area, if the activities would not disturb the surface of the Area; and

(B) if so requested by Resolution Copper, within 90 days of such request, a special use permit to carry out mineral exploration activities within the Oak Flat Withdrawal Area (but not within the Oak Flat Campground), if the activities are conducted from a single exploratory drill pad which is located to reasonably minimize visual and noise impacts on the Campground.

(3) TERMINATION- The authorization for Resolution Copper to undertake mineral exploration activities under this subsection shall remain in effect until the Oak Flat Withdrawal Area land is conveyed to Resolution Copper in accordance with this Act.

(i) Intent of Congress- It is the intent of Congress that the land exchange directed by this Act shall be consummated not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act.

(j) Environmental Compliance- Compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) under this Act shall be as follows:

(1) Prior to commencing production in commercial quantities of any valuable mineral from the Federal land conveyed to Resolution Copper under this Act (except for any production from exploration and mine development shafts, adits, and tunnels needed to determine feasibility and pilot plant testing of commercial production or to access the ore body and tailing deposition areas), Resolution Copper shall submit to the Secretary a proposed mine plan of operations.

(2) The Secretary shall, within 3 years of such submission, complete preparation of an environmental review document in accordance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4322(2)) which shall be used as the basis for all decisions under applicable Federal laws, rules and regulations regarding any Federal actions or authorizations related to the proposed mine and mine plan of operations of Resolution Copper, including the construction of associated power, water, transportation, processing, tailings, waste dump, and other ancillary facilities.

SEC. 5. CONVEYANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF NON-FEDERAL LAND

(2) LAND ACQUIRED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR-
(B) DRIPPING SPRINGS- Land acquired by the Secretary of the Interior under subsection (a)(2)(B) shall be managed in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and applicable land use plans.


--X--X--X--X--X-- Please HELP Save Oak Flat & Queen Creek --X--X--X--X--X--X--

Please write your Representatives & Call your Senators TODAY !!! ~ kudos 2 all
save it -don't sink it
save it -don't sink it

FLAG
 
By kirra
Mar 12, 2013
"The House Natural Resources Committee’s Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee will be holding a hearing on the Oak Flat land exchange (HR 687) on March 21st at 10:00 AM. We are scrambling to prepare for the hearing. There are lot's of things to do for folks in Washington, DC, here in Arizona and across the US. If you are willing to pitch in, send us a note! Stay tuned for more details."

Arizona Mining Reform Coalition

F.Book Az. Mining Reform for updates..

U.S.House Subcommittee Energy & Mineral Resources - March 21 Hearing Schedule

FLAG
By kirra
Mar 12, 2013
"You need to know--Reps. Gosar & Kirkpatrick (in spite of the termination of the agreement between the Town of Superior and Resolution Copper Co.(2-21-13)--based on the Conflict of Interest conviction of Hank Gutierrez, and how little the agreement truly provided Superior), just this past Friday, have moved the Land Exchange Legislation (HB 687) into the House Subcommittee on Energy & Mineral Resources in DC, set for Thursday, March 21, 2013 at 10 am.

By terminating this bogus agreement, the Superior Town Council has done the right thing, and are now looking out for the best interests of the entire community, environment and "Oak Flat", and not the few select people/businesses that received money from RCC. It would also appear that our AZ Congressional Delegation is only concerned in supporting these international corporate giants (Rio Tinto & BHP) by circumventing federal laws and mandates within the language of the bill.

It's apparent that they're not looking into the best interests of Superior and the concerns of the current Town Council. This action is a disgrace to our entire nation and possibly illegal. Now is the time to "turn-up the heat", voice your opinion and spread the word on how bad this special-interest legislation (benefiting these foreign mining companies), really is! We'll keep you posted, but for more info and how you can help, go to azminingreform.org. Remember: "Si Se Puede"!!! - Thanks, Roy "Potts" Chavez

reprinted- Facebook "Saving OAK FLAT Campground"

FLAG
By Ben Beard
From Superior, AZ
Mar 13, 2013
roo, my only son, the stare that takes down a herd...
kirra wrote:
"You need to know--Reps. Gosar & Kirkpatrick (in spite of the termination of the agreement between the Town of Superior and Resolution Copper Co.(2-21-13)--based on the Conflict of Interest conviction of Hank Gutierrez, and how little the agreement truly provided Superior), just this past Friday, have moved the Land Exchange Legislation (HB 687) into the House Subcommittee on Energy & Mineral Resources in DC, set for Thursday, March 21, 2013 at 10 am. By terminating this bogus agreement, the Superior Town Council has done the right thing, and are now looking out for the best interests of the entire community, environment and "Oak Flat", and not the few select people/businesses that received money from RCC. It would also appear that our AZ Congressional Delegation is only concerned in supporting these international corporate giants (Rio Tinto & BHP) by circumventing federal laws and mandates within the language of the bill. It's apparent that they're not looking into the best interests of Superior and the concerns of the current Town Council. This action is a disgrace to our entire nation and possibly illegal. Now is the time to "turn-up the heat", voice your opinion and spread the word on how bad this special-interest legislation (benefiting these foreign mining companies), really is! We'll keep you posted, but for more info and how you can help, go to azminingreform.org. Remember: "Si Se Puede"!!! - Thanks, Roy "Potts" Chavez reprinted- Facebook "Saving OAK FLAT Campground"


Looks like the Town of Superior did send a message in voting out two sitting council members and electing 2 new ones. The financial condition of the town is a wreck and it seems they might be on the verge of having to shut down many services. But before they have to break that news, the easier thing to do is to attack RCC. If the real reason was Councilman Gutierrez's conflict of interest, then why didn't this happen months ago, last year, when the AG made his decision? Pretty suspicious.

FLAG
By kirra
Mar 13, 2013
Ben Beard wrote:
..If the real reason was Councilman Gutierrez's conflict of interest, then why didn't this happen months ago, last year, when the AG made his decision?...

it did -sometimes it takes awhile to clean house

Oct 3, 2012 Superior Town Councilman Hank Gutierrez forced to resign

Nov 9, 2011 Superior Mayor Hing recalled

FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Mar 14, 2013
Possibly illegal?

Please name the CFR in violation (as in 30 CFR 57.XXXX). I'll buy you a beer if you can name one.

FLAG
By kirra
Mar 15, 2013
ClimbandMine wrote:
Possibly illegal? Please name the CFR in violation (as in 30 CFR 57.XXXX). I'll buy you a beer if you can name one.

perhaps that offer & question should be directed to the fellow quoted from FB though I'll respond as I may be thirsty soon...

CFR 30 57.XXX that you speak of regulates mining procedures and is not the correct area to look for ethics violations. A better place may be here: US Office of Govt Ethics -Conflicts of Interest - I believe that every State also has their own interpretation by Statutes (Colorado does): Links to States' Legislative Ethics & Lobbying Laws

We should perhaps offer a case o'beer to the AG of AZ who had the 'tener cojones' to call out Resolution Copper Mining for bribing the public officials in Superior Town. I heard the local details & rejoiced.

RCM has bribed the climbing community as well. You should be outraged if you have the cojones! cheers-

--------------------------------------------

For those who missed the Iranian connection -

Resolution Copper, Rio Tinto and Iran

FLAG
By Ben Beard
From Superior, AZ
Mar 15, 2013
roo, my only son, the stare that takes down a herd...
Ahh, so knee jerk. Show me where the AG or the court proved, or even mentioned, bribery with Councilman Gutierrez. Didn't RCM actually have a part in turning in Rep. Renzi? The fact is that the current council, which consisted of 4 members, of whom 2 lost horribly in their 1st real election, chose to hide the vote against the 2nd mutual benefits agreement (which took 6 months to pass) and break the agreement in an executive session, is going to change with 2 new members recently elected and understand the needs of the town.

Because I go to these meetings and don't watch from Colorado, I'm going to ask the council if they will reveal how much $$$$ they asked from RCM before they started this circus act. The town is broke, so they went to the mine and threatened them before the hearing. Pretty simple.




kirra wrote:
perhaps that offer & question should be directed to the fellow quoted from FB though I'll respond as I may be thirsty soon... CFR 30 57.XXX that you speak of regulates mining procedures and is not the correct area to look for ethics violations. A better place may be here: US Office of Govt Ethics -Conflicts of Interest - I believe that every State also has their own interpretation by Statutes (Colorado does): Links to States' Legislative Ethics & Lobbying Laws We should perhaps offer a case o'beer to the AG of AZ who had the 'tener cojones' to call out Resolution Copper Mining for bribing the public officials in Superior Town. I heard the local details & rejoiced. RCM has bribed the climbing community as well. You should be outraged if you have the cojones! cheers- -------------------------------------------- For those who missed the Iranian connection - Resolution Copper, Rio Tinto and Iran

FLAG
By Ben Beard
From Superior, AZ
Mar 15, 2013
roo, my only son, the stare that takes down a herd...
The Iran connection, really, talk about a smear campaign.

"The government of Iran ... does not gain access to any nuclear technology through its investment, it has no uranium product off-take rights and all dividend payments have been frozen."

Did you know that Hyundai, Fiat, Peugeot, Porsche and Renault were possibly violating sanctions by providing cars and parts to Iran. Similarly, Swatch continues to sell to Iran. Rio Tinto has cut Iran off from the Namibia mine that they invested in before the revolution.

kirra wrote:
perhaps that offer & question should be directed to the fellow quoted from FB though I'll respond as I may be thirsty soon... CFR 30 57.XXX that you speak of regulates mining procedures and is not the correct area to look for ethics violations. A better place may be here: US Office of Govt Ethics -Conflicts of Interest - I believe that every State also has their own interpretation by Statutes (Colorado does): Links to States' Legislative Ethics & Lobbying Laws We should perhaps offer a case o'beer to the AG of AZ who had the 'tener cojones' to call out Resolution Copper Mining for bribing the public officials in Superior Town. I heard the local details & rejoiced. RCM has bribed the climbing community as well. You should be outraged if you have the cojones! cheers- -------------------------------------------- For those who missed the Iranian connection - Resolution Copper, Rio Tinto and Iran

FLAG
 
By kirra
Mar 15, 2013
Ben Beard wrote:
Ahh, so knee jerk. Show me where the AG or the court proved, or even mentioned, bribery with Councilman Gutierrez....The town is broke, so they went to the mine and threatened them before the hearing.

No knee jerk -It's pretty simple to hear & observe from no matter what distance that you have personally aligned yourself with the Mine. The Colorado card will never work for u in any debate here. We attend Council meetings (thanks to the miracle of flight) and discuss regularly with local citizens who perhaps know quite a bit more than what is mentioned to you in any meeting.

Unfortunately it seems anything you have to contribute here is likely propaganda we're all quite familiar with. Perhaps you should open a "Lets Mine Oak Flat" thread? I will add additional info. on AG & move on. AGs do not usually waste taxpayers $$ and also tend to be the only resource & recourse at times against local municipal corruption.

Discussing Resolution Copper ethics is time wasted at this point -they have no ethics other than profit. The Mine will do as they want to the People's Land if Congress and the people let them. The Town of Superior was hurting before Resolution Copper showed up and offered a drink of water from a poison cup -have a nice day

Superior Councilman sued by Attorney General

Tuesday August 14th, 2012

The Arizona Attorney General’s Office filed an indictment against Superior Town Councilman Hank Gutierrez for voting on an agreement between the Town and Resolution Copper Mining while he was allegedly a contractor with the company, possibly violating conflict-of-interest statutes.

According to the indictment, Gutierrez 'possessed a substantial interest' in the agreement between the Town and RCM.

In 2008, RCM signed a Mutual Benefits Agreement (MBA) with the Town that provided funding for town improvements following completion of the Southeastern Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. The Town of Superior in return agreed to work together with the company.

In Dec.2010, RCM renegotiated the agreement with the Town recognizing that the land exchange bill was taking longer than expected to be approved by Congress. At that time, the company began negotiations with several members of the Superior Town Council to identify provisions that could provide additional and immediate support to the community.

“Our company policy is not to comment on pending legal proceedings and any questions regarding potential conflict of interests should be directed to the Town of Superior,” Resolution Copper said in a written statement.“We can confirm that Hank Gutierrez has been a contractor to RCM since early in the project’s history.”

Gutierrez could not be reached for comment.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

FLAG
By kirra
Mar 15, 2013
It's official -Superior does not want this Mine in their backyard. Perhaps they can now be open to other ideas for business revenue. Mining is only 1 solution -it's not the only one.

Town of Superior passes formal Resolution opposing Oak Flat Land Exchange

On March 13, 2013, the town council of Superior, Arizona passed a unanimous resolution opposing HR 687, the latest version of the Oak Flat land exchange. The resolution passed following a town council meeting a week ago in which the town council took comments on their decision to oppose the land exchange and end a Mutual Benefits Agreement with Rio Tinto. At that meeting, the majority of comments supported the town decision.

Superior Town Council meeting
During the council meeting Rio Tinto threatened to lay off it's workers if the town passed the resolution. This is similar to a threat Rio Tinto made last November to lay off most of their workers is the previous version of the land exchange, HR 1904, was not approved by Congress. There is no word yet whether Rio Tinto will follow through with their threat now that the resolution has been passed.

Copy of Resolution No.451 : www.azminingreform.org/sites/default/files/u2/TOS%20Resolution%20451.pdf

FLAG


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

Email me.
Page 1 of 5.  1  2  3  4  5   Next>   Last>>