Oak Flat News

ClimbandMine wrote: Good luck with that - Reid's from Nevada, and is pro-mining.

I'm not telling him not to mine. I'm not tell him to mine.
I'm speaking to the current Hr1904 bill in the House and the one McCain plans to introduce to the Senate that going under the guise that this mine will create jobs to AZ. Also, that the current bill is worse to climbers and the environment than the last bill (HR 2509/SB409) that got shot down last year.

THIS MAY BE THE LARGEST LAND MASS LOST TO CLIMBERS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

If you care, speak up.

I plan to start flooding the faxes of the Senate soon. Who wants to help, please PM me.

BGBingham wrote: Fred's first stab at the value of the ore is quite conservative. Of course, Dave's listed factors above enter into the business plan. Then there are those unforeseen costs much like those incurred by poor management decisions such as Massey's in keeping two sets of records to dodge MSHA regulators and killing 29 miners in the process. Or not being able to work out the technology which seems to be happening at another recently initiated mine in AZ. Can't make money at $4 copper. Or lost opportunities because management throws a collective tantrum and dismantles a state of the art smelter and misses out on $4 copper. Oh yeah, these mining companies really know what they are doing.

You are obviously a student of economics yourself, ace.

ClimbandMine wrote: You are obviously a student of economics yourself, ace.

It isn't called the dismal science for no reason Dave.

Fred AmRhein wrote: Climb and Mine, A couple of numbers tossed out with respect to the potential value and economic impact of the mine: (both sources are Resolution or those hired for their purposes) "$3 Billion copper mine" (No supporting data provided on how this number is defined or determined) aznews.us/mine_pushes_land_… "boost the state economy by $46.4 billion over the life of the project:" azcentral.com/arizonarepubl… What do you come up with? It seems like you have some pretty good sense of how to do the analysis and it might be helpful for the public to know what the expected profit/year might be? Thanks, Fred

$3 billion sounds like an NPV - but at what price and discount rate assumptions?

$46 billion is not a valuation, it is an economic benefit - taxes, wages, sales, and indirect jobs...

I'm not going to try to do an outside analysis because it will be wrong. I don't have enough information to do a proper job of it.

ClimbandMine wrote: $3 billion sounds like an NPV - but at what price and discount rate assumptions? $46 billion is not a valuation, it is an economic benefit - taxes, wages, sales, and indirect jobs... I'm not going to try to do an outside analysis because it will be wrong. I don't have enough information to do a proper job of it.

Climb and Mine,

I think many people have similar questions. Unfortunately, the clear data is rarely forthcoming.

Certainly your analysis wouldn't be right in terms of 100% probability/accuracy but your numbers could certainly help the conversation.

So, why not give it a shot for discussion's sake? Resolution has published data on tonnage rates/day in the past that others have used so that could give you a good place to start. (see savethesantacruzaquifer.inf… for instance ) Also, as I recall, most of the time they've discussed $1.30 copper as a long term price and a cost/ton in the range of the mid single digits, $4-$6 per ton or so, maybe less? I found this web site rather interesting in terms of what goes into different mining technique cost assessment ( pubs.usgs.gov/usbmic/ic-929… ) Hope it helps.

Fred

Fred AmRhein wrote:Per a link on Resolution Copper Mining's website on May 13th, 2011, at about 3:00 pm shortly after Rep. Gosar introduced the Oak Flat privatization bill on their behalf: * [The Gosar legislation] removes a 95-acre parcel of RCM land known as “The Pond” and $1.25 million earmarked to fund improvements, development and maintenance of recreational facilities on the Pond parcel. However, RCM is working directly with the recreation community to ensure this funding is still made available for these purposes. securearizonasfuture.com/bl… (Note: The web site link no longer leads to a statement that reads this way. It was changed shortly after being posted and no longer provides these details) Per the corporate QCC Website tonight (6/23/2011): *"Queen Creek Coalition (QCC [,Inc.] ) has been working on an agreement with Resolution Copper Mining (RCM) pertaining to regional climbing issues. We hope to be able to share the results of this effort in the near future, but we are dealing with local representatives of a giant corporation and it has been difficult and time consuming to make progress. We are not at the point where we have an agreement in place that we can share. When we do, QCC will announce that fact promptly on this site." Furthermore, per the corporate, non-profit QCC website (FAQ's, Oak Flat Land Exchange item) *"QCC is in the process of negotiating an agreement with RCM that it hopes will provide significant benefits to climbers. Until such an agreement is reached, QCC remains opposed to the exchange. However, if QCC determines that it is in the best interests of climbers to reach an agreement with RCM that requires QCC to abandon its opposition to the land exchange, then QCC will enter into such an agreement. Fred Note: The information summarized and excerpted above was found as indicated by the sourcing information provided via the public internet. The website securearizonasfuture.com's registrant via whois.com is indicated as Adam Hawkins. A quick google search reveals that an Adam Hawkins works for Resolution Copper and it is my understanding that they are one and the same. (See resolutioncopper.com/res/me… for instance) Furthermore, I am not a current, active member of the incorporated, non-profit QCC.

HOW DID I MISS THIS. '$1.25 million earmarked to fund improvements, development and maintenance of recreational facilities on the Pond parcel. However, RCM is working directly with the recreation community to ensure this funding is still made available for these purposes.'
WHAT THE ****? WILL THE QCCINC. GET THAT MONEY ON BEHALF OF CLIMBERS? WILL IT GO TO THE ACCESS FUND? BOTH THESE GROUPS WERE AGAINST SIGNING OFF ON A 'DEAL' A FEW YEARS AGO.

I'M SO CONFUSED ON THIS. I WANT STRAIGHT ANSWERS!!!!!

Hmmm.... it seems a private llc company (QCCinc) is making private deals with a private mine company on our recreational public issue.
Sounds like secret dealings and dirty politics.

I have questions:
1. What are the details of this deal, how much money will exchange hands? How will that money be spent?
2. Does this mean the private company or members will be testifying on behalf of the Mine co in Washington? Are you still claiming to be in the public interest?
3. Is there a deal to silence you for the future on anything to do with this issue? (Like now?)
4. Where does this put the Access Fund? They are being silent too....

Per the QCCinc~
'There is no Queen Creek climbing area to which the access is not at least partially under the current or prospective control of RCM.

If QCC were to insist that RCM abandon its preferred plans for Oak Flat, in the hope that by some miracle the clock will be turned back to 1999, the likely result is that climbing would end at Oak Flat, Euro Dog Valley and The Mine Area as soon as control of these areas is transferred to RCM. '

So what you are saying is that, RCM has control now, but if we don't make deals them now, they have control in the future?

huh?

I don't understand what you are stating on your website. Please explain.

Per QCCinc~"There is no Queen Creek climbing area to which the access is not at least partially under the current or prospective control of RCM. If QCC in the hope that by some miracle the clock will be turned back to 1999, the likely result is that climbing would end at Oak Flat,, Euro Dog Valley and The Mine Area"

sincerely the biggest croc-o'brain-washing corporate horsecrap I've seen in a long time

erik filsinger & paul dief stole the group, Queen Creek Coalition and now it's game on for control of Lord o'the Oak Flat Stakeholders

where's this Licensing *DEAL* these jokers signed -curious what they traded for it..

Fred AmRhein wrote: Climb and Mine, I think many people have similar questions. Unfortunately, the clear data is rarely forthcoming. Certainly your analysis wouldn't be right in terms of 100% probability/accuracy but your numbers could certainly help the conversation. So, why not give it a shot for discussion's sake? Resolution has published data on tonnage rates/day in the past that others have used so that could give you a good place to start. (see savethesantacruzaquifer.inf… for instance ) Also, as I recall, most of the time they've discussed $1.30 copper as a long term price and a cost/ton in the range of the mid single digits, $4-$6 per ton or so, maybe less? I found this web site rather interesting in terms of what goes into different mining technique cost assessment ( pubs.usgs.gov/usbmic/ic-929… ) Hope it helps. Fred

Yes, clear data is rarely forthcoming, because private entities do not release cost data, other than in 10K publications. This is rarely detailed down to the single-mine operation in enough detail to do much good.

Different operations, and different types of operations, have very different cost profiles. The publication you cite is out of date and not particularly applicable to an high tonnage, rubber tire, automated operation. It is laid out in the style of a Climax or San Manuel, not a Palabora or Resolution. The general cost/ton you quote is also about 20 years out of date.

As I said, I am not going to put something out there because I am not party to enough detail (and yes, I know what the Resolution design throughput is) to do a cost analysis justice.

ClimbandMine wrote: The publication you cite is out of date and not particularly applicable to an high tonnage, rubber tire, automated operation. It is laid out in the style of a Climax or San Manuel, not a Palabora or Resolution. The general cost/ton you quote is also about 20 years out of date. As I said, I am not going to put something out there because I am not party to enough detail (and yes, I know what the Resolution design throughput is) to do a cost analysis justice.

Climb and Mine,

So, in your opinion, given your view of the data that the publication presents and the advances made in recent decades, would the cost per ton have gone down or up? Generally speaking of course.

Also, given that the cost/ton has a negative slope in general, it seems reasonable to surmise that the cost/ton would be less not more than indicated given that the Resolution tonnage is greater, trendwise anyway?

Lastly, it would be of general public interest on the Resolution design throughput if you'd care to share for discussion's sake?

Thank you in advance,

Fred

ClimbandMine wrote: Yes, clear data is rarely forthcoming, because private entities do not release cost data, other than in 10K publications.

Private entities seeking public giveaways involving valuation calculations place themselves in a position where this information needs to be public. Otherwise how can an equitable trade be made?

This is the number one reason that the land swap is premature. Resolution can't say what it is worth let alone the Feds.

kirra wrote: SINCERELY the bigest croc-o'brain-washing corporate horsecrap I've heard in a long time (gotta be good -may be worth mega$$$) this group (erik & paul) *stole* the name "Queen Creek Coalition" --they feel they have now a game on of Lord o'the Oak Flat Stakeholders....WRONG.. deesee's bull sheet where's this Licensing *DEAL* that these corporate-law jokers signed -~curious what *THEY* traded for it.. shhhh...

As a nonprofit corporation, Queen Creek Coalition does not need to have, and does not have, “Inc.” in its name. The names and marks “Queen Creek Coalition” and “the Queen Creek Coalition” are the exclusive property of Queen Creek Coalition. No other person or entity has the right to use the name “Queen Creek Coalition” and doing so without the express permission of Queen Creek Coalition is unlawful.

It is true that Queen Creek Coalition formerly was an unincorporated association of ten people. At the time we felt there was no need to create a formal entity. The minority of four who left the Queen Creek Coalition in 2010 and who later formed Concerned Climbers of Arizona, LLC did not take the name with them. They made quite a show of abandoning our group and its name and creating for themselves another identity, the “Concerned Climbers.”

One of the four, Fred AmRhein, refused to turn over the group’s domain names and Queen Creek Coalition had to sue to regain control of its own website. Fred’s attempt to exercise dominion over group property demonstrated that creation of a formal entity would be prudent. Queen Creek Coalition continues to exist and function as it had before the departure of the four dissenters; it merely adopted a formal structure and therefore has been a continuous entity operating under its original name.

Dief wrote: As a nonprofit corporation, Queen Creek Coalition does not need to have, and does not have, “Inc.” in its name. The names and marks “Queen Creek Coalition” and “the Queen Creek Coalition” are the exclusive property of Queen Creek Coalition. No other person or entity has the right to use the name “Queen Creek Coalition” and doing so without the express permission of Queen Creek Coalition is unlawful. It is true that Queen Creek Coalition formerly was an unincorporated association of ten people. At the time we felt there was no need to create a formal entity. The minority of four who left the Queen Creek Coalition in 2010 and who later formed Concerned Climbers of Arizona, LLC did not take the name with them. They made quite a show of abandoning our group and its name and creating for themselves another identity, the “Concerned Climbers.” One of the four, Fred AmRhein, refused to turn over the group’s domain names and Queen Creek Coalition had to sue to regain control of its own website. Fred’s attempt to exercise dominion over group property demonstrated that creation of a formal entity would be prudent. Queen Creek Coalition continues to exist and function as it had before the departure of the four dissenters; it merely adopted a formal structure and therefore has been a continuous entity operating under its original name.

Paul,

I had always hoped that you, one of your group or under your group's control, or anybody else wouldn't drag out this sort of behind-the-scenes, small-ball political stuff into the mainstream posts and instead concentrated on the more important tasks of preserving the climbing environment and saving actual outdoor climbs, but alas, you have.

Contrary to your statements:

• I did not leave the unincorporated association nor did I abandon anything. You and the other 5 participants decided to vote me out even though I completely and without condition vowed to allow the group to continue to post whatever it wanted on the domains that I had registered in my name for the sake of the greater climbing community. I just didn't give you, a person who seemed to display a certain dislike toward me, personal control of the web site and this didn't seem to sit well with you for some reason.
• An interesting and somewhat pertinent side note: Erik Filsinger, without my knowledge, had registered the Queen Creek Coalition name with the Secretary of State on June 11, 2010. This predated my ousting by almost 2 weeks, plenty of time to notify me of his actions . . . (see azsos.gov/scripts/TnT_Searc… ) I had not been told, advised, consulted whatsoever and always found such an action as very interesting, given that such an action was quite pertitent to the group's proceedings, even its existence. I'm not in any way asserting that anything illegal was done here, but it is a fact that he did this without advising one of the 7 remaining board members. Curious indeed.
• Just another interesting fact: The comprehensive incorporation documents for your group were actually compiled and signed by Mr. Filsinger and Mr. Cecala on June 22nd, 2010. I attended the meeting at or about 6:30-7:00 pm where I was expelled that very same night. So, did you guys then compile and put together your articles afterwards or were they all ready to go when I entered the room? Just a question of course, because if they were ready to go then there was no doubt as to your course? If so, and a Board member (me) wasn't advised as to the board's actions . . . then what does this mean? . . . Of course, you 6 guys in the majority could do as you pleased right? You also had 5 hours left to prepare your docs, get everybody's addresses, etc., and complete them so maybe this is how it all went down? Perhaps we'll never know . . . but the documented facts are what they are. (see the AZ SOS office records pertaining to the QCC articles)
• In my view, you did not have to sue me, you simply seemed angry, adamant (and well financed/supported of course with what appears to be free legal help from Kent Berk and Rick Cecala your chair who is also a litigation attorney) and failed to follow through on completing the transaction to buy the property that I had registered in my name. That you failed to do this simply speaks to what I feel is you and your group's lack of business negotiating ability. Your tactics to send threatening emails and letters and make aggressive allegations didn't really create an environment where we would be sitting down to figure out the terms. It is true that we've settled this by my agreement to transfer the ownership of the domains to QCC, Inc. and that pretty much everything on both sides is disputed. However, I did in fact receive money for the intellectual property and consider it a monetary transaction, call it a sale of my property, or whatever you want, again no doubt disputed in name, but resembling such in actuality.
• As I recall, the real and true reason for being ousted was that I didn't agree with your new mission to strike a deal with the mining company and abandon the strategy to voice the greater public climbing community's diverse views by talking to Congress. My diversity of opinion didn't concur with the slim majority on its new mission so you voted me out, simple as that. Erik's name registration without my knowledge, the actions of the group before and during the June 22nd meeting, and the documented dates of preparation/signing of the documents that didn't contain my name seem to suggest a certain pre-meditated course to expel me, regardless of whether I would have turned over the web site or not in my personal view. In the future, I suggest that you more fully and honestly detail the circumstances surrounding the vote to expel me and include the discussion that ensued after I refuted your charge by offering to post any and all QCC info without restriction. In my view, it is quite disingenuous to only provide a partial story to the public and I have to wonder why you do so?
• This new, empowered slim majority of the QCC, including you, had actually decided on a reversal of mission for the group back in May; to solely work to strike a deal with RCM and stop talking to Congress, and this was quite different from what the unincorporated QCC had had as its broad, diverse mission. Thus, your new group, incorporated as a non-profit in fact and in mission was/is different than the original and true community coalition. That you have subsequently changed your mission or worded things so vaguely as to appear to have the same old mission is simply an indication of what to me was the true motive for the mission change at the time; simply to rock the boat and get rid of those unaligned with your adamant call for a deal and to stop talking to Congress.

From your own website notes of May 19, 2010: (see theqcc.org )

"Paul Diefenderfer moved that: The QCC's goal is to maximize climbing in the Queen Creek region and we seek to accomplish this by agreeing to a deal with RCM that includes access to Tamo and endorsement of the land exchange legislation. The motion was seconded by John Keedy."

The practical effect of the phrase, "endorsement of the [current] land exchange legislation" was that the group would stop petitioning Congress for any changes or modifications to the legislation, ie., the coalition's voice had spoken and would speak no more. While I was vehement that this was unnecessary and an unwise course for the greater climbing community's interest, I was committed to continuing to participate as a voice of diversity but you in fact and action did reject my participation and expel that voice.

I hope this helps straighten things out to some extent.

Fred

wrote: "Paul Diefenderfer moved that: The QCC's goal is to maximize climbing in the Queen Creek region and we seek to accomplish this by agreeing to a deal with RCM that includes access to Tamo and endorsement of the land exchange legislation. The motion was seconded by John Keedy." The practical effect of the phrase, "endorsement of the [current] land exchange legislation" was that the group would stop petitioning Congress for any changes or modifications to the legislation, ie., the coalition's voice had spoken and would speak no more. While I was vehement that this was unnecessary and an unwise course for the greater climbing community's interest, I was committed to continuing to participate as a voice of diversity but you in fact and action did reject my participation and expel that voice. I hope this helps straighten things out.

HEY PAUL
I have more questions: (Though the questions posed above still have not been answered.)
1. 'Maximize climbing' sounds great, what exactly does it mean? How can you maximize the climbing we already have out there right now? Does this mean ensure that the mining method used will not create a huge hole in the ground? Please explain...
2. Once again, it makes me wonder will you be endorsing the current bill in favor of the mine? Please explain....

I know some of the public that reads these blogs and who don't post up want to know the details of the 'deal' the QCC,inc is making with the RCM/Rio Tinto Mine. Can you please tell the public what you are doing?

Lindajft wrote: HEY PAUL I have more questions: (Though the questions posed above still have not been answered.) 1. 'Maximize climbing' sounds great, what exactly does it mean? How can you maximize the climbing we already have out there right now? Does this mean ensure that the mining method used will not create a huge hole in the ground? Please explain... 2. Once again, it makes me wonder will you be endorsing the current bill in favor of the mine? Please explain.... I know some of the public that reads these blogs and who don't post up want to know the details of the 'deal' the QCC,inc is making with the RCM/Rio Tinto Mine. Can you please tell the public what you are doing?

As long as we are asking questions, it would be great to hear from the CCA on on how they are going to protect access to the private land (The Pond, Atlantis, parts of the Mine Area and parts of Apache Leap) that many people climb on, irregardless of the land exchange. I see more climbers, and I would argue this, on the private land around Queen Creek than the land involved in the exchange. These private land crags draw a lot of traffic due to the quality and ease of access.

Fred AmRhein wrote: Climb and Mine, So, in your opinion, given your view of the data that the publication presents and the advances made in recent decades, would the cost per ton have gone down or up? Generally speaking of course.

Cost per ton for most US mines has gone up to some degree, if not significantly, in the last 10+ years. Its called inflation.

Fred AmRhein wrote: Lastly, it would be of general public interest on the Resolution design throughput if you'd care to share for discussion's sake? Thank you in advance, Fred

You answered your own question a few posts ago: "Resolution has published data on tonnage rates/day in the past that others have used so that could give you a good place to start. (see savethesantacruzaquifer.inf… for instance )"

Ben Beard wrote: As long as we are asking questions, it would be great to hear from the CCA on on how they are going to protect access to the private land (The Pond, Atlantis, parts of the Mine Area and parts of Apache Leap) that many people climb on, irregardless of the land exchange. I see more climbers, and I would argue this, on the private land around Queen Creek than the land involved in the exchange. These private land crags draw a lot of traffic due to the quality and ease of access.

BB~ I'm happy to answer your questions to the best of my ability. (Tho' I am only one member of our group)
As a member of the Concerned Climbers of AZ, I will need to refer to our mission statement that we hold as our primary purpose in our group.
"The Concerned Climbers of Arizona has been organized for the purpose of preserving climbing access and the climbing environment in Arizona. We advocate for continued recreational access to climbing areas that are threatened by development or other forms of encroachment."
That being said, we as a group use our voice to state the obvious, RCM/Rio Tinto can mine with a method that will not destroy the land of Oak Flat and all surrounding areas. (Don't Sink the land!)

I will continue to use my voice in this matter and feel it is important for us all to use our voice.

I hope I addressed your question.
You are always welcome to our meetings,

Linda

Lindajft wrote: BB~ I'm happy to answer your questions to the best of my ability. (Tho' I am only one member of our group) As a member of the Concerned Climbers of AZ, I will need to refer to our mission statement that we hold as our primary purpose in our group. "The Concerned Climbers of Arizona has been organized for the purpose of preserving climbing access and the climbing environment in Arizona. We advocate for continued recreational access to climbing areas that are threatened by development or other forms of encroachment." That being said, we as a group use our voice to state the obvious, RCM/Rio Tinto can mine with a method that will not destroy the land of Oak Flat and all surrounding areas. (Don't Sink the land!) I will continue to use my voice in this matter and feel it is important for us all to use our voice. I hope I addressed your question. You are always welcome to our meetings, Linda

Thanks for the response. To get more specific on why I ask, my concern with the CCA approach is that their hard line approach could have devastating effects to future access to the private land (Queen Creek Canyon, portions of the Mine Area and Apache Leap). While the CCA position is clearer on the Oak Flats Parcel and nearby public lands, I fear that they have no future vision or plan on working with the private landowner to continue access to our crags. The issue of access to private lands also concerns me because the local climbers (and future local climbers) cannot simply go to a gym or choose a different destination as climbers from Phoenix and Tuscon can.