Resolution Copper - Queen Creek Coalition: News Release

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.

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-con…) * 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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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

That's the truth
I wish they could have a real discussion with integrity

ClimbandMine wrote: 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?

You offered up "cost" numbers on their behalf and I examined them here.

Subsequently you modified your cost numbers to add in other "costs."

You obviously were using the "cost" terminology in a specific and technical manner and when a person uses such technical language without clearly stating so in a public forum it is often done so in order to leave options open for modifications; as you did.

Similarly, RCM has used such technical language with the public with respect to their term "underground" mine.

It has taken years for the public to discover and understand that their "underground" mine proposal actually will impact the surface in a similar manner to an open pit; albeit from under ground mining rather than above ground overburden and ore removal.

My personal take on their use of the term "underground" mine technique is for PR purposes; to insinuate that the mine won't impact the surface in such a way as to be offensive or ugly to the casual, public observer and/or decision maker when in fact it very much will.

The ever expanding maw now 1000' deep in the center and 500' deep on the sides? The Eiffel tower (~1050' tall) would just peep over the top of the crater at that center depth.

I appreciate your technical knowledge but I take issue with the assertion that it is fully informing for the public when in many cases it often leads to mistrust because of a subtle nuanced use and meaning. Such legalese seems unnecessary and leads the community to demand definition and clarification of each and every word.

Witness the issue related to the NEPA language in the legislation; poorly worded and bad for the public in my view.

Just my impression and view.

Fred

Fred AmRhein wrote: You offered up "cost" numbers on their behalf and I examined them here. Subsequently you modified your cost numbers to add in other "costs." You obviously were using the "cost" terminology in a specific and technical manner and when a person uses such technical language without clearly stating so in a public forum it is often done so in order to leave options open for modifications; as you did. Similarly, RCM has used such technical language with the public with respect to their term "underground" mine. It has taken years for the public to discover and understand that their "underground" mine proposal actually will impact the surface in a similar manner to an open pit; albeit from under ground mining rather than above ground overburden and ore removal. My personal take on their use of the term "underground" mine technique is for PR purposes; to insinuate that the mine won't impact the surface in such a way as to be offensive or ugly to the casual, public observer and/or decision maker when in fact it very much will. The ever expanding maw now 1000' deep in the center and 500' deep on the sides? The Eiffel tower (~1050' tall) would just peep over the top of the crater at that center depth. I appreciate your technical knowledge but I take issue with the assertion that it is fully informing for the public when in many cases it often leads to mistrust because of a subtle nuanced use and meaning. Such legalese seems unnecessary and leads the community to demand definition and clarification of each and every word. Witness the issue related to the NEPA language in the legislation; poorly worded and bad for the public in my view. Just my impression and view. Fred

The difference between capital and operating costs are simple and basic business terms, and are not overly technical. 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.

Regardless, we are talking about moderately technical subjects. It is not RCM's responsibility to teach its critics the engineering and babysit them through every little detail. If you don't understand what they are talking about, is that really their problem? Maybe only insofar that you might also be making improper assumptions and criticisms.

If it has taken you years to figure out something that a little basic math could have told you, then I wouldn't blame their PR for pulling any wool over your eyes.

Let's put it this way - if the USFS wants to ban bolts and bolting in an area, do you hand then the number of bolts already installed there, or let figure out there's bolts there and then count the bolts themselves? Why hand them the information on a silver platter if it is there to be seen, although with a bit of effort and a bit of knowledge.

ClinbandMine;
I have followed this thread from the beginning. I have also followed other threads that you have "participated" in. I have a few comments/ observations; 1) Fred has been civil, and open, and believes in intelligent discourse, 2) you seem to feel threatened (or you are just being mean, I do not really know which) because you use insulting and antagonistic verbiage, 3) you do appear to be intentionally vague in your math.

I do understand that you likely hold a minority position on this site regarding this issue, but just think of the strength that your argument could hold if you created the possibility of presenting your position so that others understood you. That would give you true weight (and likely respect) in the discussion.

David Arthur Sampson wrote:ClinbandMine; I have followed this thread from the beginning. I have also followed other threads that you have "participated" in. I have a few comments/ observations; 1) Fred has been civil, and open, and believes in intelligent discourse, 2) you seem to feel threatened (or you are just being mean, I do not really know which) because you use insulting and antagonistic verbiage, 3) you do appear to be intentionally vague in your math. I do understand that you likely hold a minority position on this site regarding this issue, but just think of the strength that your argument could hold if you created the possibility of presenting your position so that others understood you. That would give you true weight (and likely respect) in the discussion.

Which costs do I seem to be intentionally vague on? The ones where a climbing gym couldn't make money? The cut and fill costs? Block cave costs? OPEX, capex?

You guys seem to be a little vague about me being vague. :).

If you are specific, I might be able to clarify.