Route Guide - iPhone / Android - Partners - Forum - Photos - Deals - What's New - School of Rock
Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Resolution Copper - Queen Creek Coalition: News Release
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 3 of 4.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3  4   Next>   Last>>
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
By The Phoenix
Jun 4, 2013
The Phoenix

ClimbandMine wrote:
we already rolled over to the Indians on that...


Wow... you are one messed up kitten.

Serisouly - is there a vet in your area? Please go check yourself in for quick euthanasia session.


FLAG
By The Phoenix
Jun 4, 2013
The Phoenix

ClimbandMine wrote:
and while you are at it stop driving, using your cell phone, computer, and anything else that has copper in it. Then we'll talk about ignorant.


So without mining this specific copper deposit in the exact way this company wants - the US isn't going to have any more copper? Are you for real??


FLAG
By manuel rangel
From Tempe, Arizona
Jun 4, 2013
Trying to redpoint The Ugly 11c; steeper than it looks and the rock is scary in spots but good enough.

Whether you respect history, federally mandated protections, or hold anything sacred, the real point is that many citizens want a rational approach to the mine. Regardless of any other factors, there are many people joined together to avoid a tragedy on Oak Flat.

Climb and Mine, if you can suggest a solution that would avoid this tragedy, I welcome it. The question is, would RCM care? I think not.

Letting this corporation take over and destroy this land is bad for the water, air quality and does nothing besides enrich their coffers. True, we will have copper but we leave behind another pile of crap like the ones already growing in the Ray and Pinto mines, for our children.


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 4, 2013

ClimbandMine wrote:
Annoying when someone misdirects, misinterprets, and posts incorrect facts, isn't it? 'Cause that's what environmentalists have been doing for 40 years.


Really?

I'm pretty sure that those advocating for an environmentally impacting proposal (Oil, Mineral, etc., exploration/extraction) mean well; they want to make money, help the US with their "strategic" supplies etc.

But unwatched, unquestioned, and all other stakeholders and protections (PLO 1229) be damned?

I'm kind of thinking that's why NEPA, the EPA, etc., came into being . . . history is replete with examples of hazardous, unhealthy, and publicly damaging events that could have been avoided (and are on a daily basis) because there was and are oversight by not just agencies but by concerned and independent citizens.

Given what appears to be your penchant for rugged individualism, I would think that this sort of personal power would be appealing?

Regardless, this legislative proposal pretty much guts the evolved, conventional NEPA process that would come into play for the Oak Flat lands; not only does NEPA guarantee individual participation and input but demands it and the apparent override of it by Gosar's bill should concern just about anybody on any side.

Gosar's bill sets bad precedent in my view and it just gets worse with every rewrite by RCM' legislative consultants.

Just my view.

Fred


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 4, 2013

ClimbandMine wrote:
OK, give up Cave Rock (oh, wait, too late - we already rolled over to the Indians on that...), don't poach the Totem Pole ('cause we in-mover climbers ALWAYS respect the Indians), and while you are at it stop driving, using your cell phone, computer, and anything else that has copper in it. Then we'll talk about ignorant.


Public Land Order of 1955 was put in place so that you and I could specifically recreate on the Oak Flat parcel and to protect this unique and valuable area from the encroaching mining operations. As I mentioned before, Oak Flat was specifically protected from acquisition under the mining laws; never before has a so protected USFS land been handed over to a firm to mine it. This is a bad precedent for any so situated national public lands in my mind.

I know of no actions by Native Americans with respect to the Oak Flat issue that will keep you from going onto that land.

The Cave Rock issue was taken up by the Access Fund; they lost their battle but they put up a good fight. Cave Rock was not set aside as a dedicated recreational area as Oak Flat is so in a way it was a different situation of sorts.

At least that is my understanding; perhaps somebody else can help with the details for you.

Hope it helps.

Fred


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jun 4, 2013

Fred AmRhein wrote:
Really? I'm pretty sure that those advocating for an environmentally impacting proposal (Oil, Mineral, etc., exploration/extraction) mean well; they want to make money, help the US with their "strategic" supplies etc. But unwatched, unquestioned, and all other stakeholders and protections (PLO 1229) be damned? I'm kind of thinking that's why NEPA, the EPA, etc., came into being . . . history is replete with examples of hazardous, unhealthy, and publicly damaging events that could have been avoided (and are on a daily basis) because there was and are oversight by not just agencies but by concerned and independent citizens. Given what appears to be your penchant for rugged individualism, I would think that this sort of personal power would be appealing? Regardless, this legislative proposal pretty much guts the evolved, conventional NEPA process that would come into play for the Oak Flat lands; not only does NEPA guarantee individual participation and input but demands it and the apparent override of it by Gosar's bill should concern just about anybody on any side. Gosar's bill sets bad precedent in my view and it just gets worse with every rewrite by RCM' legislative consultants. Just my view. Fred


Because NEPA is GREAT and never corrupted? Just like the rest of government is totally infallible (cough)? What kind of scientist writing a critical report doesn't even go to site? Oh right, one from the EPA.

"Although EPA’s ‘hypothetical mine’ is sited at the location of the Pebble deposit, BBWA authors continue to refuse to consider the most extensive scientific data set available on the region – environmental baseline data collected by the Pebble Limited Partnership (the Pebble Partnership” or “PLP”) at a cost of some $150 million. The failure to fully consider PLP’s environmental data is contrary to EPA’s own guidelines for data quality, and is compounded by the fact that BBWA study authors have never set foot on the Pebble Project site.

“The Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment process has truly become the theatre of the absurd,” Thiessen said. “Rather than waiting for the Pebble Partnership to submit a proposed development plan for consideration by federal and state regulatory agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), something that is expected to occur this year, EPA has invented its own hypothetical mine, it has continued to ignore modern mine engineering practices and regulatory requirements, it has shunned the best available scientific and environmental data at its disposal, and it has created a public and peer review process designed to minimize scientific scrutiny of its work."

But you all will just cry "oh you can't trust the evil mining company".

Read the rest of the press release. Critical reviews were from the NGO's against Pebble... www.kitco.com/pr/1738/article_06042013083410.pdf


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jun 4, 2013

manuel rangel wrote:
Whether you respect history, federally mandated protections, or hold anything sacred, the real point is that many citizens want a rational approach to the mine. Regardless of any other factors, there are many people joined together to avoid a tragedy on Oak Flat. Climb and Mine, if you can suggest a solution that would avoid this tragedy, I welcome it. The question is, would RCM care? I think not. Letting this corporation take over and destroy this land is bad for the water, air quality and does nothing besides enrich their coffers. True, we will have copper but we leave behind another pile of crap like the ones already growing in the Ray and Pinto mines, for our children.



Would you approve of solution mining with sulfuric acid?

That would result in no subsidence, no tailings, and no impact to air. That ticks all your boxes.

Let's put it in simple terms. At $3 / pound, ore at 1% copper is worth $60 per ton in the ground. Not much for an underground mine. I've worked on a few studies lately with in-place values of $250 to up to $2,000 per ton.

Cut and fill mining runs $150 / ton - would you loose $90 / ton for your company?

Stoping mines run $60-80 per ton operating cost. Would you loose all the capital and possibly $20/ton on top of it for your company?

Didn't think so. That's why Rio is looking at block caving. Sublevel caving still leaves a crater.

Solution mining might be feasible, but I doubt has ever been tried at that depth. I bet you guys would LOVE putting acid in your groundwater. Or not.


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 5, 2013

ClimbandMine wrote:
Because NEPA is GREAT and never corrupted? Just like the rest of government is totally infallible (cough)? What kind of scientist writing a critical report doesn't even go to site? Oh right, one from the EPA. "Although EPA’s ‘hypothetical mine’ is sited at the location of the Pebble deposit, BBWA authors continue to refuse to consider the most extensive scientific data set available on the region – environmental baseline data collected by the Pebble Limited Partnership (the Pebble Partnership” or “PLP”) at a cost of some $150 million. The failure to fully consider PLP’s environmental data is contrary to EPA’s own guidelines for data quality, and is compounded by the fact that BBWA study authors have never set foot on the Pebble Project site. “The Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment process has truly become the theatre of the absurd,” Thiessen said. “Rather than waiting for the Pebble Partnership to submit a proposed development plan for consideration by federal and state regulatory agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), something that is expected to occur this year, EPA has invented its own hypothetical mine, it has continued to ignore modern mine engineering practices and regulatory requirements, it has shunned the best available scientific and environmental data at its disposal, and it has created a public and peer review process designed to minimize scientific scrutiny of its work." But you all will just cry "oh you can't trust the evil mining company". Read the rest of the press release. Critical reviews were from the NGO's against Pebble... www.kitco.com/pr/1738/article_06042013083410.pdf


I appreciate the input on areas other than Oak Flat but the topic is really Oak Flat and the legislation to privatize it.

My personal experience as an individual interacting with NEPA processes has been such that I've at least been heard and had my comments acted upon.

One of the major concerns with the legislation that seeks to privatize your dedicated recreational area (since 1955 per PLO 1229), is that HR 687 and its sister bill in the Senate, S339, (easy to remember since 3x3=9) appear to potentially override the public input process (NEPA) for Federal lands impacted by a proposal.

This is but one issue of course; another being the use of a dedicated recreational area protected from mining for mining purposes and the precedent this potentially sets (There's that bothersome, thorn in the toe Public Land Order 1229 again . . .).

And another, the use of Native Sacred lands and apparent lack of true and meaningful consultations with indigenous people about such . . . another confounding little legal legacy detail . . .

Maybe you should contact your congressman or woman about your concerns about the EPA, etc., on those other issues, or maybe you already have?

Fred


FLAG
By BGBingham
Jun 5, 2013
night ice

ClimbandMine wrote:
Would you approve of solution mining with sulfuric acid? That would result in no subsidence, no tailings, and no impact to air. That ticks all your boxes. Let's put it in simple terms. At $3 / pound, ore at 1% copper is worth $60 per ton in the ground. Not much for an underground mine. I've worked on a few studies lately with in-place values of $250 to up to $2,000 per ton. Cut and fill mining runs $150 / ton - would you loose $90 / ton for your company? Stoping mines run $60-80 per ton operating cost. Would you loose all the capital and possibly $20/ton on top of it for your company? Didn't think so. That's why Rio is looking at block caving. Sublevel caving still leaves a crater. Solution mining might be feasible, but I doubt has ever been tried at that depth. I bet you guys would LOVE putting acid in your groundwater. Or not.


Troll. Solution mining targets secondary copper minerals. My understanding is that the bulk of RCM's orebody is primary copper sulfide minerals which are not amenable to solution mining. C&M is using this concept to tweak readers of this thread. If on the other hand he knows that this is not the case, then I wish he'd reveal more because RCM has a history of keeping technical facts to themselves. No doubt they have found zones of secondary copper mineralization, but how much is a big question. C&M works in the industry, so please reveal more!

All the above figures support not mining this valuable mineral resource because they indicate that copper is underpriced with respect to the environmental and cultural cost of trashing the Oak Flat area.

The history of mining is replete with such scenarios. Take tailings for example. It is the waste from mountain sized orebodies of 1% copper ore ground down to fine sand in order to separate the copper minerals from the host rock to be sent to the smelter. That 99% goes to tailing ponds. Historically the side walls of tailings have a slope at the angle of repose. This is so steep that when they get flooded they slide and it is very difficult to grow anything on them to keep them from sliding. Did this figure into the thinking of the miners who made them? It didn't. That would have made the mining process too expensive, yet vast quantities are being spent in this attempt now. This begs the question of if the copper mined in the 1900's was economic in the long term. Obviously not as the companies are still paying for it.

RCM is very adept at spreading the idea that they practice sustainable principles but they really don't. It is just a word to them.A decade plus into this project and they have completely failed to give a full description of what their proposal will do to the landscape in terms of subsidence, tailings, areal extent (think ASARCO discovery just to the east) and water impacts. They have however, spent millions on PR and lobbying so that politicians and ideologues line up and utter their talking points and scripts.

Let this orebody sit in the ground until it can be mined in an enlightened way. If miners ran the high tech industries we'd still be using floppy disks and lack the internet. Environmental and cultural constraints should merit the same consideration and importance as technical constraints.


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 5, 2013

ClimbandMine wrote:
Let's put it in simple terms. At $3 / pound, ore at 1% copper is worth $60 per ton in the ground. Not much for an underground mine.


RCM's proposal is not just about copper; don't forget that they have divulged that it contains Molybdenum in significant quantities to mention. It doesn't appear to add a lot to the total sum but it does add a bit.

From their 2011 "Project Profile:" (see resolutioncopper.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RCM10585Proj>>>

* In March 2010, Rio Tinto, Resolution Copper’s parent company, reported an Inferred Resource of 1.624 billion tonnes of ore at a grade of 1.47 percent copper and 0.037 percent molybdenum. An Inferred Resource assumes there is a continuous mineralized body present based on geological evidence, but the actual mass of the mineralization is still unproven.

It also appears that your calcs would be about 50% off in terms of yield for the copper, 1.47% vs. 1.0%; this seems significant to the topic at Oak Flat. Based on RCM's own numbers and your assertions it would appear that "Stoping mines" would be a consideration?

Fred


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jun 6, 2013

The Phoenix wrote:
So without mining this specific copper deposit in the exact way this company wants - the US isn't going to have any more copper? Are you for real??


So you are saying you would rather get your metals from places like the Congo where there are no environmental protections and the profits are used to fuel civil war?

Are you for real?


FLAG
By NC Rock Climber
From The Oven, AKA Phoenix
Jun 6, 2013
tanuki

ClimbandMine wrote:
So you are saying you would rather get your metals from places like the Congo where there are no environmental protections and the profits are used to fuel civil war? Are you for real?


C and M, you are a fucking troll. Ever hear of a false dichotomy? You don' t bring anything to the conversation except bullshit and an ax to grind. Go away.


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jun 6, 2013

Fred AmRhein wrote:
RCM's proposal is not just about copper; don't forget that they have divulged that it contains Molybdenum in significant quantities to mention. It doesn't appear to add a lot to the total sum but it does add a bit. From their 2011 "Project Profile:" (see resolutioncopper.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RCM10585Proj>>> * In March 2010, Rio Tinto, Resolution Copper’s parent company, reported an Inferred Resource of 1.624 billion tonnes of ore at a grade of 1.47 percent copper and 0.037 percent molybdenum. An Inferred Resource assumes there is a continuous mineralized body present based on geological evidence, but the actual mass of the mineralization is still unproven. It also appears that your calcs would be about 50% off in terms of yield for the copper, 1.47% vs. 1.0%; this seems significant to the topic at Oak Flat. Based on RCM's own numbers and your assertions it would appear that "Stoping mines" would be a consideration? Fred


$60-80 per ton only includes OPEX. Wouldnt have a positive return including capital.

And 0.037% Mo is ok for byproduct but is hardly significant on a per ton basis, especially when accounting for byproduct recoveries.


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jun 6, 2013

BGBingham wrote:
Troll. Solution mining targets secondary copper minerals. My understanding is that the bulk of RCM's orebody is primary copper sulfide minerals which are not amenable to solution mining. C&M is using this concept to tweak readers of this thread. If on the other hand he knows that this is not the case, then I wish he'd reveal more because RCM has a history of keeping technical facts to themselves. No doubt they have found zones of secondary copper mineralization, but how much is a big question. C&M works in the industry, so please reveal more! All the above figures support not mining this valuable mineral resource because they indicate that copper is underpriced with respect to the environmental and cultural cost of trashing the Oak Flat area. The history of mining is replete with such scenarios. Take tailings for example. It is the waste from mountain sized orebodies of 1% copper ore ground down to fine sand in order to separate the copper minerals from the host rock to be sent to the smelter. That 99% goes to tailing ponds. Historically the side walls of tailings have a slope at the angle of repose. This is so steep that when they get flooded they slide and it is very difficult to grow anything on them to keep them from sliding. Did this figure into the thinking of the miners who made them? It didn't. That would have made the mining process too expensive, yet vast quantities are being spent in this attempt now. This begs the question of if the copper mined in the 1900's was economic in the long term. Obviously not as the companies are still paying for it. RCM is very adept at spreading the idea that they practice sustainable principles but they really don't. It is just a word to them.A decade plus into this project and they have completely failed to give a full description of what their proposal will do to the landscape in terms of subsidence, tailings, areal extent (think ASARCO discovery just to the east) and water impacts. They have however, spent millions on PR and lobbying so that politicians and ideologues line up and utter their talking points and scripts. Let this orebody sit in the ground until it can be mined in an enlightened way. If miners ran the high tech industries we'd still be using floppy disks and lack the internet. Environmental and cultural constraints should merit the same consideration and importance as technical constraints.



Have you been to Climax lately? 500 million tons of reclaimed, benched tailings - all green.

I am still waiting to hear about your wonderous block caving - backfill method that will work without diluting and sterilizing the orebody. I have 16 years of MassMin proceedings on my desk and not one mention anywhere in industry.


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 7, 2013

ClimbandMine wrote:
$60-80 per ton only includes OPEX. Wouldnt have a positive return including capital. And 0.037% Mo is ok for byproduct but is hardly significant on a per ton basis, especially when accounting for byproduct recoveries.


Can you elaborate on the OPEX?

I have an idea of what you meant but I want to be sure.

Thanks,

Fred


FLAG
By Ben Beard
From Superior, AZ
Jun 7, 2013
roo, my only son, the stare that takes down a herd of 'stock

ClimbandMine wrote:
Have you been to Climax lately? 500 million tons of reclaimed, benched tailings - all green. I am still waiting to hear about your wonderous block caving - backfill method that will work without diluting and sterilizing the orebody. I have 16 years of MassMin proceedings on my desk and not one mention anywhere in industry.


Look up the Mufulira Disaster in Zambia in 1970. Tailings and subsiding ground took the lives of 89 miners.


FLAG
By The Phoenix
Jun 7, 2013
The Phoenix

ClimbandMine wrote:
So you are saying you would rather get your metals from places like the Congo where there are no environmental protections and the profits are used to fuel civil war? Are you for real?


Ya, this is pretty pathetic CandM - maybe the folks you spend time with are dumb as shit and don't understand a false dichotomy but this sort of argument is the one tea baggers tend to like because it relies on ignorance like yours. But then again you know you're full of BS and likely being paid to troll.

Looks like there's plenty of places to choose from C&M - you're so full of shit...



So while you're at it feel free to explain how you plan to climb in Oak Flat after your beloved company has leveled the area as your name suggests?


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 7, 2013

ClimbandMine wrote:
Stoping mines run $60-80 per ton operating cost. Would you loose all the capital and possibly $20/ton on top of it for your company? Didn't think so. That's why Rio is looking at block caving.


Are you using "ton" to mean 2,000 lb as it often does in the US or are you using "tonnes" as in the metric ton which is 2,204.6 lb (1,000 kg) and is how Rio reports its inferred Resource?

At 1.47% copper, $3 per lb, 2,204.6 lb/tonne, this yields 32.4 lb copper/tne and $97.20 ptne.

For the Molybdenum, let's take $11/lb but you only get .037%, or about 0.8 lb/tne, or $8 ptne.

So, overall yield based on "tonnes" used by Rio Tinto (a European corporation and thus the metric interpretetion of 1,000 kg) would be $105.20 per tonne given the $3/$11 price for Cu/Mo.

Of course, this does not take into account the other unreported minerals that are perhaps in the deposit in some other unknown concentration that often add significantly to profit or coverage for operations (Au, Ag, Re, etc.).

If the upper limit of $80 for stoping is using the US ton number then it would scale to ~$89, giving a ~$16 net, or 18% profit minimum?

Fred


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jun 7, 2013

Ben Beard wrote:
Look up the Mufulira Disaster in Zambia in 1970. Tailings and subsiding ground took the lives of 89 miners.



And the Sunshine mine fire happened in 1972, killing 91 miners.

A lot has changed in 50 years in technology, regulation, and engineering practices.


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jun 7, 2013

Fred AmRhein wrote:
Are you using "ton" to mean 2,000 lb as it often does in the US or are you using "tonnes" as in the metric ton which is 2,204.6 lb (1,000 kg) and is how Rio reports its inferred Resource? At 1.47% copper, $3 per lb, 2,204.6 lb/tonne, this yields 32.4 lb copper/tne and $97.20 ptne. For the Molybdenum, let's take $11/lb but you only get .037%, or about 0.8 lb/tne, or $8 ptne. So, overall yield based on "tonnes" used by Rio Tinto (a European corporation and thus the metric interpretetion of 1,000 kg) would be $105.20 per tonne given the $3/$11 price for Cu/Mo. Of course, this does not take into account the other unreported minerals that are perhaps in the deposit in some other unknown concentration that often add significantly to profit or coverage for operations (Au, Ag, Re, etc.). If the upper limit of $80 for stoping is using the US ton number then it would scale to ~$89, giving a ~$16 net, or 18% profit minimum? Fred



I used American units - we are in the US... When in Rome we use SI...

If another element contributed significantly to value it would be reported. 43-101 101 - not supposed to sandbag.


Let's explain the rest this way...

You build a climbing gym for $500,000. That $500,000 is capital (CAPEX), and a good chunk of it is borrowed or invested in your company by others - either way you basically owe somebody $500k plus interest.

To run your climbing gym it costs (hypothetically speaking here...) $20,000 a year in wages, supplies, etc. That's your operating expenses (OPEX).

If you make a 20% margin over OPEX, you are making $24,000 a year in revenue. So $4,000 a year in operating profit.

You pay 20-35% to the feds (depending how good your accountants are), 5% to the state, plus property taxes.

So now you are down to $2,000-2,500 per year.

Is that enough to pay off $500,000 plus interest costs (@ 5% plus per year?). Most investors look for a 2-5 year payback on invested capital. I'd guess it might be a little longer on this project due to size and mine life...

20% margin on just OPEX is nothing. You have taxes, general admin, corporate admin, legal costs, environmental costs (believe it or not). A mine will most likely not have a positive return on investment with 20% OPEX margin.

20% on full costs, maybe (depending on capital investment required), but this is a different number and includes all the extras that I listed above.


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 27, 2013

ClimbandMine wrote:
I used American units - we are in the US... When in Rome we use SI... If another element contributed significantly to value it would be reported. 43-101 101 - not supposed to sandbag. Let's explain the rest this way... You build a climbing gym for $500,000. That $500,000 is capital (CAPEX), and a good chunk of it is borrowed or invested in your company by others - either way you basically owe somebody $500k plus interest. To run your climbing gym it costs (hypothetically speaking here...) $20,000 a year in wages, supplies, etc. That's your operating expenses (OPEX). If you make a 20% margin over OPEX, you are making $24,000 a year in revenue. So $4,000 a year in operating profit. You pay 20-35% to the feds (depending how good your accountants are), 5% to the state, plus property taxes. So now you are down to $2,000-2,500 per year. Is that enough to pay off $500,000 plus interest costs (@ 5% plus per year?). Most investors look for a 2-5 year payback on invested capital. I'd guess it might be a little longer on this project due to size and mine life... 20% margin on just OPEX is nothing. You have taxes, general admin, corporate admin, legal costs, environmental costs (believe it or not). A mine will most likely not have a positive return on investment with 20% OPEX margin. 20% on full costs, maybe (depending on capital investment required), but this is a different number and includes all the extras that I listed above.


C&M,

No matter what numbers and "facts" are presented, RCM's/yours seem to be continuing to change.

To that end, evidently RCM is now purportedly discussing in round table meetings that the above ground subsidence pit from their "underground" proposal is anticipated to be 1000' deep in the center and probably about 500' near the edges?

So much for the gentle sloping surface they and their friends touted just a few short years ago.

And the legislation potentially allows them to avoid having to hear from the public in a true evolved NEPA process?

Bad special interest legislation in my view.

Fred


FLAG
By Geir
From Tucson, AZ
Jun 27, 2013
Toofast

Fred AmRhein wrote:
C&M, No matter what numbers and "facts" are presented, RCM's/yours seem to be continuing to change. To that end, evidently RCM is now purportedly discussing in round table meetings that the above ground subsidence pit from their "underground" proposal is anticipated to be 1000' deep in the center and probably about 500' near the edges?


Crap. Well, at least they will have a nice big hole to put all the tailings in.


FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jun 28, 2013

Geir wrote:
Crap. Well, at least they will have a nice big hole to put all the tailings in.


As discovered a while back by locals, RCM has a contingency to dump tailings hundreds of feet high and many, many 1,000's of feet long on each side south of US 60 near Florence Junction. As I recall it is State Trust land used by off-roaders and formerly by the AZ Nat'l Guard for training. RCM moved to lease the land under the name of a cattle operation . . . (Integrity Land & Cattle Co.) Here's an article about it: up to 350' high &~10 sq miles of tailings

Also, the depth #'s of the pit from the "underground" mine I discussed above were detailed by RCM at an informational meeting held by RCM in Superior just recently.

The pit info only came out voluntarily and was not the result of any required NEPA process.

Maybe more importantly, as the years have shown, the devastating effects of the mining proposal on the designated Oak Flat Recreational Area only get larger, deeper, and more impacting.

And they want us to potentially forego the NEPA process in their legislation . . .

Fred


FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Jun 29, 2013

Fred AmRhein wrote:
C&M, No matter what numbers and "facts" are presented, RCM's/yours seem to be continuing to change. To that end, evidently RCM is now purportedly discussing in round table meetings that the above ground subsidence pit from their "underground" proposal is anticipated to be 1000' deep in the center and probably about 500' near the edges? So much for the gentle sloping surface they and their friends touted just a few short years ago. And the legislation potentially allows them to avoid having to hear from the public in a true evolved NEPA process? Bad special interest legislation in my view. Fred



I don't speak for RCM, as I don't have inside information. As such, I have not stated how deep subsidence will be at Resolution....

So how can I change a number I haven't stated?



They seem to be hearing a lot from the public without NEPA now, eh?


FLAG
By Concerned Climbers of Arizona
Jun 29, 2013

ClimbandMine wrote:
They seem to be hearing a lot from the public without NEPA now, eh?


Unfortunately, RCM simply ignores all of the NEPA related facts that are contrary to their very misleading public relations efforts.


FLAG


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

Email me.
Page 3 of 4.  <<First   <Prev   1  2  3  4   Next>   Last>>