|
curt
Jan 23, 2004, 9:45 PM
Post #101 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Dave,
In reply to: one issue is that other methods may not be economic - i.e. the company may not be able to make a profit mining the ore at current or projected prices. In prefeasibility studies companies look at a variety of methods and choose the most suitable one for the type of orebody they have, then later design around the orebody using the method they selected.
It would sure be nice to enter into these discussions armed with some reasonable economic estimates.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
allarounder
Jan 23, 2004, 10:16 PM
Post #102 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2003
Posts: 174
|
xxx
|
|
|
|
|
theying
Jan 23, 2004, 11:16 PM
Post #103 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2003
Posts: 29
|
I am a little late on reading the news here but am more than willing to pitch in and do whatever it take to help keep Queen Creek open to climbers. This would be a great loss to the climbing community. I will be sending my letter.
|
|
|
|
|
sonso45
Jan 24, 2004, 12:26 AM
Post #104 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2002
Posts: 997
|
Curt, thanks for heading me in the right direction with the email address for the Forest Service. I have a response from Mr. Vincent Picard, Deputy Public Affairs, who said he would keep me posted with any info on future proceedings. This is his email, once again, for anyone wanting to contact him: vpicard@fs.fed.us
M
|
|
|
|
|
fastestgun
Jan 26, 2004, 2:35 AM
Post #105 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2003
Posts: 11
|
Come on guys, send in those e-mails to vpicard@fs.fed.us. It only takes 5-10 minutes. Who knows, maybe your area will be next? Here is a copy of the letter I sent:
Dear Mr. Picard,
This letter is in response to Kennecott’s rumored intention to close Oak Flat campground and begin ‘Block Caving Extraction’ of the underlying copper ore. Such extraction would result in significant surface subsidence and most likely permanently alter or destroy the unique rock climbing that is available surrounding the Oak Flat campground (known to climbers as ‘Queen Creek Area’).
As a regular visitor to the area and a rock climber for 5 years, I can attest to the unique recreational activities that surround this area. Rock climbing, and bouldering in particular, rely on certain characteristics of the rock such as abundance of holds, steepness of the grade, and soundness of the rock all of which are present at Queen Creek. These qualities combined with it’s proximity to the greater metro areas surrounding Tucson and Phoenix make Queen Creek the premier rock climbing area in central Arizona.
In addition to it’s quality of climbing and hiking, Queen Creek has a rich history and is home to the largest and most successful bouldering contest in the world. It would be a shame to lose a resource that is as unique and irreplaceable as Queen Creek.
If there is any way to force Kennecott to remove the copper ore by means that will not limit access to this treasured resource it would be appreciated by a very large number of people.
Best Regards,
Jon Apprill
|
|
|
|
|
allarounder
Jan 26, 2004, 4:08 PM
Post #106 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2003
Posts: 174
|
xxx
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 26, 2004, 4:32 PM
Post #107 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: I found out some more information in a telephone conversation over the weekend. Some of it is priviledged, but what I can say is this: 1) The deposit is still in the exploration phase. Permitting has not begun. That means development work (driving drifts to access the orebody) is probably 8-10+ years off and production is 10-15 years away. 2) The orebody is so deep that caving would take a long time to affect the surface. 3) The orebody is a couple miles from the range front. I'm not entirely sure how that relates to Queen Creek but i don't think the orebody is under it. I need to get a map and figure it out. Anyway, I came away last night feeling better about things. Curt, I'm thinking about a trip out there March 5,6,7. You free? It's a long shot but I could see about meeting with someone with Kennecott while we're at it.
Dave,
I should be around then, just let me know as your plans firm up. I have also been doing more "homework" on this topic and understand things a bit better. I currently believe that the company running this project is called Resolution Copper Company. I believe Resolution is a joint venture between Rio Tinto and BHP, with Kennecott Exploration (a subsidiary of Rio Tinto) doing the current exploration work. I have the name and phone number of the project manager and I intend to speak with him to arrange a meeting.
I fully realize that the really bad consequences that could result from this mining activity are off several years in the future. Never the less, I believe that now is the time make Resolution Copper, the NFS and others aware of our concerns. That way, while this project is still in its planning stage, preservation of the surface resources can be taken into account.
And further, I would argue that we are actually doing Resolution Copper a favor by speaking up. By understanding our concerns now and designing their future mining activities with these concerns in mind, Resolution can potentially avoid expensive duplicate planning, re-designs and even potential litigation in the future.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
allarounder
Jan 26, 2004, 4:40 PM
Post #108 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2003
Posts: 174
|
Resolution is also the name of the deposit.
I'll let you know about the trip. I'll be out of town till 2/13. Good job tracking down the PM.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jan 26, 2004, 5:10 PM
Post #109 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
Here is a web site dedicated to the closure of lower devils canyon (sierra club)
http://arizona.sierraclub.org/paloverde/climbing/devils.html
Here is a paper done by the national research council
"Hardrock mining on federal lands"
http://www.nap.edu/html/hardrock_fed_lands/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
allarounder
Jan 26, 2004, 5:32 PM
Post #110 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2003
Posts: 174
|
xxx
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jan 26, 2004, 5:45 PM
Post #111 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
I posted the Sierra club link because of possibility of garnering useful contact info from people that have apparently been working on this issue for the last five years. I have some issues with the policies of the Sierra Club, but that doesn't negate the fact that they do sometimes have a useful function.
The NAD paper has more info than I have the patience to wade through for right now.
|
|
|
|
|
freakystyley
Jan 26, 2004, 7:45 PM
Post #112 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 151
|
In reply to: ...While mining dollars come and go tourist dollars tend to be more steady. When you visit QC and stop to buy gas, food, etc. Please let the establishment know you are a climber and ask them to help keep the climbing area open so you can keep on visiting their business.... !
I am an out of state, "climbing snowbird" if you will... Point is, QC is near my parents (read:babysitter) and the wife and I can head out and have some fun while staying close to our homebase. We have a great time out there and have met some wonderful people, Dief and Rich to name a few.
- Good or Bad climbing should not and is not the issue here, it is a climbing place that should be saved (or at least fought for). I urge the readers/responders to let their personal opinions about some rc.com members NOT confuse the issue. This is a very popular PUBLIC climbing area - something my state is lacking. Closure of this area should be fought for like it was your own...becasue you never know, your employer might relocate you to Phoenix :D , and guess what. You missed the fight.
Curt, thanks for spearheading this topic - especially with the target some members put on your back - and allarounder, nice to see you on this side, your first few posts were starting to scare me!
Curt, Dief, allarounder, et al. Put me on the SUPPORT list - I just sent out three letters and two emails, and will do so every few weeks until all the information is presented.
I urge everyone to follow suit. Keep it open.
|
|
|
|
|
stevesarete
Jan 27, 2004, 1:22 AM
Post #113 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2004
Posts: 6
|
Sorry to have given some good quality legal advice.
|
|
|
|
|
jgill
Jan 28, 2004, 4:02 AM
Post #114 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2002
Posts: 653
|
Great effort, Curt (and others). It's good to see action well in advance of actual mining. Let me know if I can help. I'll send a message to the NFS, as you suggest. 8)
|
|
|
|
|
climberchic
Jan 28, 2004, 6:23 AM
Post #115 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2000
Posts: 2077
|
*edited to keep only pertinent info
So here's the deal:
This project will require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policies Act (NEPA). NEPA analyzes a proposed action, as well as required alternatives to the proposed action, for many different environemental effects. Noise, air, water quality, natural resources (threatened and endangered species included) socioeconomic factors, to name a few. Just because there can be adverse effects to any of these, does NOT an action unmake. If the undesirable effects do not outweigh the benefits of the action, it can get passed. Most of the permits he listed fall under NEPA, but this is standard practice and will not hold anything up.
Now here's the fun part :):
What you can do:
#1
Guess what? You are doing everything right, right now. Write those letters and keep em coming. The Forest Service and the BLM are the Federal Agencies to contact. It wouldn't hurt to contact your local government as well. They will put pressure on the agencies if there are enough of you.
One of the portions of NEPA is a little thing called Public Involvement. 'Cept Public Involvement isn't so little if there is a very big voice. I kid you not. If there is an uproar about closing the Queen Creek area, they may be forced to accept an alternative that allows mining, but keeps the land above open. Advocacy groups (although I am not familiar with the individuals he listed, it would do no harm to call them) are a great tool for advice and support. I cannot stress the Access Fund as your spearheading force enough. They are well versed in NEPA and all things Public Involvement. Even if they think that this one is not for them, they can tell you what to do on your own.
But remember, to be taken seriously, focus on the issue at hand: the closure of Queen Creek to recreational users. Do not attempt to stop the mining altogether, but instead work towards an alternative feasible to the needs of you (the recreational user), the Forest Service, the mine, and the BLM.
#2
Talk to the Forest Service now (Curt, do you want to take the lead on this one?) about including a climbing management plan, if they don't already, in their Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP). They update it every year and, if included, could be used if the proposed mine ever gets to the NEPA stage. Another of the issues analyzed in NEPA is land use. I see that the Forest Sevice multi-use plans and public involvement to be our biggest allies here.
~Erica
P.S. allarounder- with your knowledge of what the mines are discussing, do you think staggered subsidence would be a feasible alterntative to keep access open?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 28, 2004, 6:36 AM
Post #116 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Erica,
I intend to continue my contact with the Tonto NFS staff and also to initiate contact with the Resolution Copper Project Manager (who's name and phone number I already have) and also with the parent companies of Resolution Copper.
I'm not sure if you read this entire thread or not, but my intent is not to stop mining of this particular ore deposit--but rather to try and get Resolution to agree to build a means for preserving our climbing resources into their overall plan for ore extraction at this site. This would seem to me to be consistent with the philosophy of sustainable development espoused by progressive mining companies these days.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
climberchic
Jan 28, 2004, 1:59 PM
Post #117 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2000
Posts: 2077
|
In reply to: I'm not sure if you read this entire thread or not, but my intent is not to stop mining of this particular ore deposit--but rather to try and get Resolution to agree to build a means for preserving our climbing resources into their overall plan for ore extraction at this site. This would seem to me to be consistent with the philosophy of sustainable development espoused by progressive mining companies these days. Curt
Bingo, Curt.
Yes, I have been following this thread very closely and that's why I suggested you to be the one to go to the FS. You've got the right idea about sustainable development, but I wanted to reiterate that point for anyone else that may want to get involved.
|
|
|
|
|
stevesarete
Jan 29, 2004, 1:45 AM
Post #118 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2004
Posts: 6
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
stevesarete
Jan 29, 2004, 1:56 AM
Post #119 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2004
Posts: 6
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
climberchic
Jan 29, 2004, 2:32 AM
Post #120 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2000
Posts: 2077
|
deleted reply to remark that has been deleted.
...or something.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 29, 2004, 2:49 AM
Post #121 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
OK, I love a good cat fight between two aggressive women--I mean who doesn't? And, if ever there is a mud wrestling match arranged to settle this matter, I could be talked into officiating. However fighting among ourselves here over things like which specific environmental permits may or may not be required for this mine to actually open is, in my opinion, not particularly constructive. Let's not take our eye off the ball.
Next subject. A meeting has been arranged for Tuesday February 3rd between Bruno Hegner, project manager for Resolution Copper Company and some folks in the local climbing community. I was not invited for whatever reason. Anyway, I will post here what I do hear that results from that meeting.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
stevesarete
Jan 29, 2004, 2:56 AM
Post #122 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2004
Posts: 6
|
I'm sorry that my post was treated this way. It is disgusting to engage in these types of petty insults since it doesn't move towards a solution which is what is really important here.
|
|
|
|
|
climberchic
Jan 29, 2004, 4:58 AM
Post #123 of 619
(68607 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2000
Posts: 2077
|
True dat, Curt. I apologize for the rant.
Next issue: who were the climbing folks invited? Paul, I'm assuming. Will Brent be there?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 29, 2004, 5:11 AM
Post #124 of 619
(68819 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: True dat, Curt. I apologize for the rant. Next issue: who were the climbing folks invited? Paul, I'm assuming. Will Brent be there?
Jim Waugh, who arranged the meeting, will of course be there. Dief and I will be there--and I believe that Eric Filfinger (sp?) will be there.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
akornylak
Jan 29, 2004, 5:27 AM
Post #125 of 619
(68819 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 251
|
In reply to: I was sincere in thanking you for your intentions, but I hardly believed that you practiced environmental law considering the information you gave. I believe you may have been an associate attorney, or maybe took a NEPA class in college, but that is the extent. May I ask what firm you worked for? I’ll be sure to steer clear of them for legal advice.
So much for listening to the lawyer. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
