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

Email me.
 
 
By manuel rangel
From Tempe, Arizona
Jul 30, 2013
I'm pretty sure C&M is not going to do anything but be a shill for RCM and their horribly flawed plan to mine Oak Flat. Anything he says we can be assured is of no consequence to the majority of users reading his statements.

Anything he says is just more of the same party line; maybe we should call him Senator McCain Jr?

FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Jul 30, 2013
ClimbandMine wrote:
What attack? I state facts and give examples. Y'all never did answer when i asked what you were talking about.


From another thread: Climb and Mine said "If those are difficult concepts maybe a high school economics class would be in order? And maybe 8th grade algebra, too? I'm not here to teach basics that someone could have learned by paying attention in school."

I guess I kind of think this is a veering off into an ad hominem mode.

Just my view.

Fred

FLAG
By Geir
From Tucson, AZ
Jul 30, 2013
Toofast
Concerned Climbers of Arizona wrote:
A very predictable response. When the data conclusively shows how bad mining is for the environment, simply claim the study is flawed.


Hahahaha nice.

As far as I can see the Concerned Climbers and the Access Fund speak for the vast majority of climbers I have met in Queen Creek over the years. No amount of argument from Climb and Mine (whoever that is) is going to change that.

FLAG
By Geir
From Tucson, AZ
Jul 30, 2013
Toofast
Fred AmRhein wrote:
From another thread: Climb and Mine said "If those are difficult concepts maybe a high school economics class would be in order? And maybe 8th grade algebra, too? I'm not here to teach basics that someone could have learned by paying attention in school." I guess I kind of think this is a veering off into an ad hominem mode. Just my view. Fred


I completely agree.

FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Aug 1, 2013
Concerned Climbers of Arizona wrote:
A very predictable response. When the data conclusively shows how bad mining is for the environment, simply claim the study is flawed.


Ah, math, it sucks when it doesn’t support your case.

The study IS flawed and the authors bungled the primary basis for their conclusions. 

They state that water treatment for the listed mines is on the order of $57-67 Billion per year – for treatment of 17-27 Billion gallons per year.  Looking at the first 20 mines on their list, typical treatment costs were $0.001 to $0.008 per gallon per year – less than ONE CENT per gallon.  For instance the Captain Jack mine – a historic mine from the 1800’s in Colorado had an annual operating cost of $28,500 to treat 26.3 million gallons – ONE TENTH OF A PENNY per gallon per year.  The average of the mines I calculated (the first 20 or so) was $0.0036 per gallon.    Looking at the table and summing up the operating costs, the total is somewhere in the range of $50-70 MILLION per year. 

I guess $57-67 MILLION per year for all of those mines across the West, old historic ones, existing mines with fully funded reclamation budgets, and proposed mines that don’t exist, wouldn’t quite make the impact on people or regulators even if it is the real cost. 

But, I guess a big scary impact is more important than being remotely correct to some people.

So, do you have any REAL concrete, recent examples?  Preferably not from hundred-plus year old mining districts?

FLAG
By Concerned Climbers of Arizona
Aug 1, 2013
ClimbandMine wrote:
The study IS flawed and the authors bungled the primary basis for their conclusions. 


Everyone reading this thread can decide for himself whether all the scientists, researchers, statisticians and others at the EPA have produced a flawed study--or whether it's more likely that the mining industry employee posting on this forum is once again misrepresenting the facts.

FLAG
By The Phoenix
Aug 1, 2013
The Phoenix
Climb and Mine... the fact of the matter is you and your firm want to alter and irreparably destroy federally protected lands to make a buck at everyone else expense. It doesn't take an idiot to see this... most folks don't get duped by bogus studies and numbers you or your employer put forth.

The EPA and other regulators don't make any more money one way or the other so they have no skin in the game as it were. . . you sir are a vastly different story and this forum has exposed the manipulative nature of both you and your company from whom you so dearly suckle from the teet.

FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Aug 1, 2013
Concerned Climbers of Arizona wrote:
Everyone reading this thread can decide for himself whether all the scientists, researchers, statisticians and others at the EPA have produced a flawed study--or whether it's more likely that the mining industry employee posting on this forum is once again misrepresenting the facts.


They can decide for themselves.

The study wasn't produced by the EPA. It was produced by Earthworks - a "nonprofit organization ... Evolved from the work of two organizations: the Mineral Policy Center and the Oil and Gas Accountability Project."

Who is misrepresenting facts?

The readers of this forum should look at that earthworks link, and decide for themselves what the truth is.

FLAG
 
By ClimbandMine
Aug 1, 2013
The Phoenix wrote:
Climb and Mine... the fact of the matter is you and your firm want to alter and irreparably destroy federally protected lands to make a buck at everyone else expense. It doesn't take an idiot to see this... most folks don't get duped by bogus studies and numbers you or your employer put forth. The EPA and other regulators don't make any more money one way or the other so they have no skin in the game as it were. . . you sir are a vastly different story and this forum has exposed the manipulative nature of both you and your company from whom you so dearly suckle from the teet.


I don't work for RIo Tinto, RCM, and have never consulted for RCM.

I have no personal financial stake in the mine.



How am I manipulating anything? Because I can read and add, and then tell something for what it is? Sorry if you don't like reality.

FLAG
By Fred AmRhein
Aug 1, 2013
ClimbandMine wrote:
Ah, math, it sucks when it doesn’t support your case. The study IS flawed and the authors bungled the primary basis for their conclusions.  They state that water treatment for the listed mines is on the order of $57-67 Billion per year – for treatment of 17-27 Billion gallons per year.  Looking at the first 20 mines on their list, typical treatment costs were $0.001 to $0.008 per gallon per year – less than ONE CENT per gallon.  For instance the Captain Jack mine – a historic mine from the 1800’s in Colorado had an annual operating cost of $28,500 to treat 26.3 million gallons – ONE TENTH OF A PENNY per gallon per year.  The average of the mines I calculated (the first 20 or so) was $0.0036 per gallon.    Looking at the table and summing up the operating costs, the total is somewhere in the range of $50-70 MILLION per year.  I guess $57-67 MILLION per year for all of those mines across the West, old historic ones, existing mines with fully funded reclamation budgets, and proposed mines that don’t exist, wouldn’t quite make the impact on people or regulators even if it is the real cost.  But, I guess a big scary impact is more important than being remotely correct to some people. So, do you have any REAL concrete, recent examples?  Preferably not from hundred-plus year old mining districts?


C & M,

So, meanwhile, back in Congress, RCM's legislation sits and provides a potential legal detour around the NEPA process for their massively impactful proposal.

More pertinent to Oak Flat, how does their legislation aid the citizenry in understanding more fully the consequences of allowing an area protected from mining for generations to be essentially destroyed by a minig process?

Fred

FLAG
By The Phoenix
Aug 1, 2013
The Phoenix
ClimbandMine wrote:
I don't work for RIo Tinto, RCM, and have never consulted for RCM. I have no personal financial stake in the mine. How am I manipulating anything? Because I can read and add, and then tell something for what it is? Sorry if you don't like reality.

While we're on the topic of FACTS... Lets start with some facts about YOU obtained from the internet (public record):

ClimbandMine aka David M. Loring

Current Work: Staff Engineer, Mine Ventilation Services , Inc.

Previous Work: ventilation/project engineer with Westinghouse TRU Solutions at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, NM.

Education: Colorado School of Mines

You also currently serve as the Vice Chair in the M&E Underground Ventilation Unit Committee in the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc.

Souces:
summitpost.org/users/climbandm...
zoominfo.com/p/David-Loring/30...
smenet.org/uvuc/




Your manipulation is to get folks caught up in these little inconsistencies in numbers hoping they forget that you and these firms are advocating to destroy federally protected lands for private profit.

That's reality Mr. Dave Loring... I see you're in Rado these days. Why is it so essential (to you) for this mine to destroy land that is was specifically designated as federally protected? Clearly the impact will be massive and the land irreparably altered.

it's funny how you argue the inconsistency in numbers so well but when faced with a question about morals and destruction of the current environment all you do is ignore, ignore, ignore.


Climb and Mine
Climb and Mine

FLAG
By kirra
Aug 1, 2013
The Phoenix wrote:
Climb and Mine... the fact of the matter is you and your firm want to alter and irreparably destroy federally protected lands to make a buck at everyone else expense. It doesn't take an idiot to see this... most folks don't get duped by bogus studies and numbers you or your employer put forth. The EPA and other regulators don't make any more money one way or the other so they have no skin in the game as it were. . . you sir are a vastly different story and this forum has exposed the manipulative nature of both you and your company from whom you so dearly suckle from the teet.

+1 u knoit

The Phoenix wrote:
Your manipulation is to get folks caught up in these little inconsistencies in numbers hoping they forget that you and these firms are advocating to destroy federally protected lands for private profit. That's reality Dave... smile.

yeah doggys

ClimbandMine wrote:
They can decide for themselves.

sure we'll vote- majority rules right?

(right up until the lobyists check-in then BS + $$ = Rules)

FLAG
By Concerned Climbers of Arizona
Aug 1, 2013
ClimbandMine wrote:
The study wasn't produced by the EPA. It was produced by Earthworks - a "nonprofit organization ... Evolved from the work of two organizations: the Mineral Policy Center and the Oil and Gas Accountability Project." Who is misrepresenting facts?


We provided two sources, the actual EPA study and the Earthworks link. You are once again misrepresenting facts. Stating that you don't work for RCM is completely irrelevant. You still owe your livelihood to mining and are nothing more than a blatant shill for the industry.

FLAG
By kirra
Aug 1, 2013
Concerned Climbers of Arizona wrote:
shill for the industry.

shill

that's the word I was lookin'4 thanks!

shill [shil]

1.pretended customer or gambler: an accomplice who pretends to be an interested customer or gambler in order to lure others into buying or gambling
2.self-interested promoter: somebody who promotes somebody else or makes a sales pitch for something for reasons of self-interest
3.be a shill: to be or work as a shill.

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.

Shill typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed).

FLAG
By The Phoenix
Aug 1, 2013
The Phoenix
After you're done pontificating the moral dilemma of destroying federally protected lands to put a buck in your pocket, feel free to let us know about any contracts the mining companies have with your firm (Lets start with Rio, etc, etc.)

And then when you're done with that, feel free to enlighten us to how the Society for MM&E get their funding (Mining firms like Rio obviously) and how much they donated last year and in the previous years to political campaigns. If you wanna get detailed with your numbers (as we know you like to do) how much did your firm and your society donated to the representatives (incl. in congress) who are involved in this Oak Flat debacle.

Yup, reality sucks when you can't pull the wool over the sheep's eyes, doesn't it?

FLAG
By ClimbandMine
Aug 1, 2013
Kirra, you are classy...

FLAG
 
By The Phoenix
Aug 1, 2013
The Phoenix
ClimbandMine wrote:
Kirra, you are classy...


That's the best you got - what no flashy numbers, no distractions? Can't even muster up an actual response David?

You sir are a piece of work... I'm surprised you even know what classy means. Right now you seem like the filth that has ruined and destroyed the great lands in our country and your best answer is... nothing.

Maybe you should grab a towel and mop up the pool of ignorance surrounding you.

FLAG
By NC Rock Climber
From The Oven, AKA Phoenix
Aug 1, 2013
tanuki
The Phoenix wrote:
Your manipulation is to get folks caught up in these little inconsistencies in numbers hoping they forget that you and these firms are advocating to destroy federally protected lands for private profit. That's reality Mr. Dave Loring... I see you're in Rado these days. Why is it so essential (to you) for this mine to destroy land that is was specifically designated as federally protected? Clearly the impact will be massive and the land irreparably altered. it's funny how you argue the inconsistency in numbers so well but when faced with a question about morals and destruction of the current environment all you do is ignore, ignore, ignore.


Thanks, Phoenix, for the great posts. Cheers!

The bolding in the above quote is my edit, and perfectly states why Climb and Mine / Dave Loring should just be ignored or flamed. Many of the posters on this thread try to discuss this issue in a constructive manner where facts are presented and opinions can be formed. Climb and Mine / Dave Loring just wants to win an argument by any means possible. By entering into discussion with him, you are tacitly validating his standing as a person who has something to add to this discussion. He does not.

In an effort to maintain the polite nature of this thread, I will only say that Climb and Mine / Dave Loring's posts have almost no value. He adds little to this conversation and should be ignored.

FLAG
By Dale Evans
Aug 1, 2013
David Loring-showing us what true class is!?

The manner and consistency with which you inveigle and obfuscate are truly of a higher order.
Your threats however are pathetic and shriveled.

Run a search for your name here on MP.com and you will find that you have been outed for quite sometime... everyone else is just way less of a fucking dickhead than you are.

Or they were. Looks like enough has been had.

FLAG
By M Sprague
Administrator
From New England
Aug 1, 2013
Lichen head. Me, with my usual weatherbeaten, lichen covered look from scrubbing a new route.
Keep it civil please. Socrates had a lot more impact with his arguments by keeping to the high road then stooping to the low, even when the ramifications were affecting his very life.

FLAG
By NC Rock Climber
From The Oven, AKA Phoenix
Aug 1, 2013
tanuki
9 hours since a Climb and Mine / Dave Loring post. That is a good thing!

FLAG
By Geir
From Tucson, AZ
Aug 2, 2013
Toofast
NC Rock Climber wrote:
9 hours since a Climb and Mine / Dave Loring post. That is a good thing!


I busted out laughing at work when I read that post. That was some seriously good investigative work.

FLAG
By kirra
Aug 3, 2013
NC Rock Climber wrote:
22 hours since a Climb and Mine / Dave Loring post. Like a cockroach scurrying back under the refrigerator when the light is turned on, Dave Loring has decided not to address the facts brought up in The Phoenix's posts. Ah, facts, it really sucks when they prove you to be a shill and a hypocrite.


I have been censored twice

Climb & Mine sent a threatening email to me equating to worse that an insect. The admins here apparently have no taste for his whining & bitching to have me censored as I posted up his bad behavior.

I will forward his hate-mail to anyone who wants to witness his penmanship. Apparently his feelings are hurt and he is too embarrassed to allow it now to be seen here on MP

C&M -MP may own this website but they don't own the Internet. This email will most likely follow you ...forever... until you apologize

FLAG
By nicelegs
From Denver
Aug 3, 2013
I've seen both censorships.

My guess, he's threatening MP with litigation. Not that he could possibly win but it's still more trouble than they want to deal with. Therefore, you get the shit can.

He's definitely a piece of shit. No question about it.

FLAG
 
By kirra
Aug 3, 2013
nicelegs wrote:
I've seen both censorships....My guess, he's threatening MP with litigation.

thanks legs -faulty litigation most likely but who needs any at all

Mr. Loring should aquaint himself to the fact that in Rado we have a few laws to protect citizens against folks who behave badly. It's likely he has already lost his case..

TITLE 18, ART 9, PART 1. PUBLIC PEACE AND ORDER
C.R.S. 18-9-111 ~ Harassment

FLAG


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

Email me.
Page 4 of 5.  <<First   <Prev   2  3  4  5   Next>   Last>>