Climbers want the Resolution Copper mine in AZ?

ClimbandMine wrote: I do discount a "tailings filled block cave". I have done enough studies on caving dilution to know that you would ruin the orebody doing thst...

ClimbandMine,

Thanks for the technical background info.

I believe we are saying the same thing with respect to the historical mining operation in the Magma Mine in terms of no surface manifestations from the ore removal.

But, do not forget that attempts to privatize Oak Flat were made in at least two instances in decades past. Both were denied because of the Public Land Order (1229) designating it as a recreational area that precludes the acquisition of this federal parcel for mining purposes (USFS property). In essence, not only is it national Forest Service land, it is further protected from commercial acquisition for mining; a somewhat unique parcel for sure.

Can you say some more about the "caving dilution" that you mention; I'm not sure I quite understand what you are describing and it would be informative to have a better understanding.

Thanks in advance.

Fred

Geir wrote: It's safe to say climbers have picked this battle knowing full well what is at stake. I am curious as to why the QCC has not produced any justification to back up their claim that they are the principle representatives of AZ climbers. There is no mention of this or their blanket letter of support on the forums, their website, or their Facebook page. If they truly represent the bulk of the community they ought to answer to this and provide some documentation supporting their contention. Otherwise they ought to stop making this claim and disclose to our representatives that they do not speak for most climbers.

Well stated!

The sad fact is that they never say that the represent anyone. All of their statements are just true enough to be legal, and from what I have seen the QCC never makes any claims they cannot back up. It is all marketing BS approved by a lawyer and spun to the public through politicians and mine management.

In their own words, the QCC is an "Arizona nonprofit corporation dedicated to the conservation of climbing areas and the development and maintenance of public access to climbing areas," nothing more. They never talk about the consent of the "climbing community," and even go so far as to state that they have no members. To make it even worse, the QCC will not have a meaningful dialogue with non-board members or entertain any alternate strategies. They do not need to; the QCC has a plan. From their actions it is obvious that the opinions of the "climbing community" are not important to them.

This whole thing is sorted and disgusting. I do not know what the motives of the QCC board are, but IMHO they have sold out to the mine 100%.

Edit to add:
To be clear, I do not support the QCC and am 100% opposed to its current course of action.

Thanks NC.

This is the statement that I am referring to:

"The Queen Creek Coalition, a federally recognized 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization registered in the State of Arizona, is and has been the principal representative of Arizona rock climbers on the proposed Land Exchange and copper mine project near Superior, Arizona."

This is the first sentence of the letter of support written by QCC and apparently delivered to (at least) Gosar and Kirkpartick. For the full text see Fred's earlier post.

Fred AmRhein wrote: ClimbandMine, Thanks for the technical background info. I believe we are saying the same thing with respect to the historical mining operation in the Magma Mine in terms of no surface manifestations from the ore removal. But, do not forget that attempts to privatize Oak Flat were made in at least two instances in decades past. Both were denied because of the Public Land Order (1229) designating it as a recreational area that precludes the acquisition of this federal parcel for mining purposes (USFS property). In essence, not only is it national Forest Service land, it is further protected from commercial acquisition for mining; a somewhat unique parcel for sure. Can you say some more about the "caving dilution" that you mention; I'm not sure I quite understand what you are describing and it would be informative to have a better understanding. Thanks in advance. Fred

FYI, National Forest land all over the west has mining claims on it, and must go through Plan of Operations steps, among other permitting steps (I won't list them, they are different depending on the state and the project), in order to be mined... Not much different than BLM, just adds one more agency to the mix. It is the PLO 1229 that makes this piece of land special (legally speaking).

Dilution in caving... Picture an hourglass. Every drawpoint acts as one hourglass and you have hundreds or thousands that overlap a little bit. As the LHD draws ore out from the middle, the tendency is for ore to flow faster down the middle of the "hourglass" than at the sides. That is the first principle to understand.

Second is the concept of "fines migration". If you pour sand into a pile of big rocks, the sand fills in the holes and flows to the bottom of the pile. Finer particles move faster than the big particles.

In caving, you blast the undercut underneath the mass of ore you want to draw. The ore starts as larger blocks and the more ore is drawn, the more rocks crush and grind against each other within the cave. Particle size within the cave decreases as more ore is drawn out from below. The particles (rocks) aren't uniform, though, and the fines move faster through the cave than the bigger rocks. This generally means that at some point waste (sub-ore grade material) from above enters the ore and dilutes the ore. This may be from waste rock above the orebody, a mined out level above, or wherever.

We know about the phenomenon, know how to model it, and plan the mine to minimize it.

A method that Brent proposes that adds tailings (sand - fines) into the cave, either on surface or underground during active mining would only add to this dilution in a large way, thus reducing the mine life, marginalizing the orebody, and defeating the purpose of putting in the mine in the first place. Adding cement to the tails would not work because the cave is always moving and it would just break up just like the rock.

Hope that makes sense somewhat...

Geir wrote: "The Queen Creek Coalition, a federally recognized 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization registered in the State of Arizona, is and has been the principal representative of Arizona rock climbers on the proposed Land Exchange and copper mine project near Superior, Arizona."

That is interesting. I wonder, if "we" had a lawyer, could he argue that the "principal representative of Arizona rock climbers" part of that statement is not true, or is the wording loose enough to make it OK. It is just slick, legal, smoke and mirrors that has little to do with the truth.

We are in total agreement; they are negotiating on "our" behalf, without "our" consent. The QCC knows this and does not care.

Geir wrote: I am curious as to why the QCC has not produced any justification to back up their claim that they are the principle representatives of AZ climbers.

Hey Geir,
Dare I say..... Gag Order?

That is exactly what happened to Mayor Hing (Ex Superior Mayor) and others in the past with RCM. It's how they play this game.

The Access Fund supports the QCC and their successful negotiation of a license agreement with Resolution Copper (RCM) that allows continued climbing access on RCM's private land near Superior, Arizona. The QCC has not been the only or primary representative of Arizona rock climbers on the proposed Land Exchange and copper mine project. In May of 2012, the Access Fund hired a dedicated staffer (Curt Shannon) to advocate for a favorable outcome for climbers and all those who love Oak Flat. This work has included educating Federal, State and agency policy makers on the significant problems with the proposed land exchange legislation, reaching out to like-minded organizations and entities, and helping to build out a coalition of those opposed to the proposed, extremely destructive, block cave mine at Oak Flat.

Other than the Access Fund, the Concerned Climbers of Arizona and more recently the American Alpine Club have been active in addressing the ongoing concerns of climbers as they relate to the potential loss of Oak Flat and surrounding climbing areas. The QCC has been the principal climbing organization directly negotiating a license and settlement agreement with Resolution Copper to potentially offset the loss of climbing that would be caused by the RCM mine. Each individual climber will have to decide for him or herself which groups best represent their position on Oak Flat.

If it weren't for the mine we'd have to completely rename an entire section of QC climbing!

For the sake of public information:

The QCC has not spoken up on the proposed The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange since the group had it's split internally. If memory serves me correct, it was the summer of 2010. If fact, now the remaining members within the group have been silent on the Land exchange completely.

There are many that have spoken that they are pleased and support other groups that include climbers from AZ and other parts of the US that are in opposition of that Southeast Land Exchange as it is proposed.

In the year of 2013 there must to be a way that land will not be destroyed by the mines current proposed methods.

Linda

Pete Hickman wrote:If it weren't for the mine we'd have to completely rename an entire section of QC climbing!

Can you explain this statement?

I think he is referring to "The Mine" area :-)

Curt

Pete Hickman wrote:If it weren't for the mine we'd have to completely rename an entire section of QC climbing!

Indeed; a true testament to how an appropriate mining paradigm can truly coexist with climbing above and upon the very same land.

Unfortunately, with the proposed block cave process of RCM's/Rio Tinto's, coexistence in the true sense is not possible and perhaps some if not all of The Mine Area will become inaccessible for various real and technical reasons.

Fred

It looks like on Wed, May 15th there will be a vote on the land swap bill (H.R. 687) in the Natural Resources Committee of the House:

naturalresources.house.gov/…

Now would likely be another crucial opportunity to remind the voting members of what's at stake by giving away Oak Flat.

Thanks Ben, I just did.

Geir wrote:Until this is addressed I feel that climbers should not cooperate with any of the requirements RCM is placing on us through this "agreement". Doing so will only further the misperception that climbers have acquiesced to RCM's demands.

couldn't agree with you more.. we lost the vote last week in the House 23 to 19

Save Oak Flat

youtube.com/watch?v=vepDrsG…

Lindajft wrote:For the sake of public information: The QCC has not spoken up on the proposed The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange since the group had it's split internally. If memory serves me correct, it was the summer of 2010. If fact, now the remaining members within the group have been silent on the Land exchange completely. There are many that have spoken that they are pleased and support other groups that include climbers from AZ and other parts of the US that are in opposition of that Southeast Land Exchange as it is proposed. In the year of 2013 there must to be a way that land will not be destroyed by the mines current proposed methods. Linda

Solution mining.

But I doubt you would approve of injecting acids through your aquifer...

ClimbandMine wrote: Solution mining. But I doubt you would approve of injecting acids through your aquifer...

You are such a troll.

BGBingham wrote: You are such a troll.

Not to mention - wrong