|
|
|
|
sonso45
Dec 23, 2004, 12:49 AM
Post #51 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2002
Posts: 997
|
John contacted me a couple months ago about helping to develop a new climbing area. It would replace the portion of Queen Creek that the mine wants to close to public access. He told me that it was probably a done deal and that I could contribute to the climbing communiy in Phoenix by helping him. He said he had been hired to develop a replacement climbing area not currently developed or accessible and he could use my help and in fact I would be paid. I love new routes and have done quite a bit of exploring in AZ. I was happy to oblige, in fact I was flattered that Sherman would want my help. I met him and we toured the Rock Tank area. We spoke of other areas and looked at a map that showed the general area around Phoenix. I hope we don't lose access to Oak Flat. I am working as a Friend of Queen Creek to keep access to all climbing in the area. I hope John's endeavors are pointless but I don't think so. Until it is a done deal, I am going to remain a FOQCr!
|
|
|
|
|
myrmidon
Dec 23, 2004, 12:50 AM
Post #52 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2004
Posts: 82
|
According to public records in AZ, subsurface rights were granted to Resolution Copper by Magma Mine (a previous owner of the rights AND the land), if and only if, substantial amnounts of copper were to be found.
Also seems like the public could be for it in the local area because most governemnetales are pushing the job development aspect.
From AZ public records:
Rio Tinto (Resolution Copper) owns 55 percent controlling interest in the property. Resolution is a joint venture company that bought out all rights held by Magma Mines, through a company called BHP Billiton, which incxludes all "underground mine, concentrater, and smelter"
In reply to: On Saturday, BHP gave up control of its Superior mining interests to Resolution Copper Co., controlled by Rio Tinto.
All from public records, curt.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 23, 2004, 12:54 AM
Post #53 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
By the way, some of the general posts in this thread concerning Oak Flat, would be more appropriate here.....
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...iewtopic.php?t=49528
.....so that this thread can stay on the original topic of John Sherman and his involvement with the mining project. Thanks.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 23, 2004, 12:57 AM
Post #54 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: According to public records in AZ, subsurface rights were granted to Resolution Copper by Magma Mine (a previous owner of the rights AND the land), if and only if, substantial amnounts of copper were to be found. Also seems like the public could be for it in the local area because most governemnetales are pushing the job development aspect. From AZ public records: Rio Tinto (Resolution Copper) owns 55 percent controlling interest in the property. Resolution is a joint venture company that bought out all rights held by Magma Mines, through a company called BHP Billiton, which incxludes all "underground mine, concentrater, and smelter" In reply to: On Saturday, BHP gave up control of its Superior mining interests to Resolution Copper Co., controlled by Rio Tinto. All from public records, curt.
I am very well aware of all of this. None of this has anything to do with the 760 acres of withdrawn land under the Oak Flat campground, however. And, that is what we are talking about here.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
ebelay
Dec 23, 2004, 1:38 AM
Post #55 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2002
Posts: 195
|
In reply to: I met him and we toured the Rock Tank area.
Manny - Thanks for the info. Sounds like you've been closer to Sherman than anybody when it comes to this issue and it's good to hear that he's actively looking around for new areas. However, I'll still stand on my point that it's nothing but a bone tossing to the climbing community to make Resolution look good from a PR perspective.
Are you talking about the granite crags at Rock Tank near Florence? Isn't this area slated for a housing development? Either way, opening or further developing this area would be a trivial gesture at best and would not go very far toward being a viable alternative to Oak Flat.
I recall spending some time out there exploring bouldering possibilities a few years back and went home rather disappointed after experiencing the rotten exfoliating granite peeling off time after time. I concluded that you had picked the few good lines out there. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough, but I don't think that's the case at least from a bouldering perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
myrmidon
Dec 23, 2004, 2:19 AM
Post #56 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2004
Posts: 82
|
In reply to: There are two types of mineral claims open to miners: lode claims and placer claims. A lode claim is the classic vein of valuable mineral in a defined boundary of rock. Placer claims are all claims not confined in a lode such as loose sand or gravel. The maximum size for a placer claim is 20 acres.
Lode claims allow the rights holder to get at all the lode, regardless of location. According to AZ public records, The copper company holds a lode claim. Therefore, it has everything to do with the area you speak about because that is where the copper is located.
In reply to: Once a mining claim has been approved the claimant gains the right to develop and extract minerals. No other use of the land is permissible. In the pursuit of minerals the claimant can construct fences, build houses for full-time employees, and use as much timber as is necessary for the mining operation. Mining claims are considered real property and as such can be bought, sold, transferred, leased, rented, willed or inherited.
Quote source: US Federal Mining law.
Bob D’Antonio Attempts Comeback Tour!
Compelled to repeat the history of Elvis and die of constipation on a toilet in an undisclosed location with a stack of Nutter-Butters in his hand, Bob D’Antonio is a living homage to the fat and bloated Elvis Presley America came to feel sorry for and love through pathos.
Follow his exciting comeback special as he nearly dies of heart failure trying to keep up to his arch nemesis: his own bald spot reflecting back at him from the laughing mirror in front of him.
Bob’s High School Picture
http://i11.ebayimg.com/.../03/04/9e/b3_1_b.JPG
Which one is the real Bob D’Antonio?
http://www.rotten.com/...ses_kuala_lampur.jpg
Bob Practicing for fulfilling evening of self fellatio.
http://www.rotten.com/...s/elvis_fat_left.jpg
http://www.rotten.com/...uction_underwear.jpg A picture of Bob when he actually had a “package” to deliver.
Check out how Elvis tried, and lost, to attack the doctor on foreign soils.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?m=54930&f=0&b=0
Everyone that chimes in either supports dorkos or points out to Elvis what a hypocrite he is, but the dilaudid addled brain of Elvis is compelled to die squeezing out one last turd on the toilet seat of life.
Bob D’Antonio, this is your life. Your toilet seat is calling you. Take your rightful place at the throne, King of Yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
sonso45
Dec 23, 2004, 3:04 AM
Post #57 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2002
Posts: 997
|
You're right Eric, the rock is very grainy and the lines are limited, it would be difficult to equate it with the amount and quality found in QC. I just thought it would stave off development of a beautiful natural area in exchange for the loss of a more useful area. Didn't strike a chord in Sherman's opinion. If the highway is moved north of the present highway 60, he may find a replacement there.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 23, 2004, 3:25 AM
Post #58 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: There are two types of mineral claims open to miners: lode claims and placer claims. A lode claim is the classic vein of valuable mineral in a defined boundary of rock. Placer claims are all claims not confined in a lode such as loose sand or gravel. The maximum size for a placer claim is 20 acres. Lode claims allow the rights holder to get at all the lode, regardless of location. According to AZ public records, The copper company holds a lode claim. Therefore, it has everything to do with the area you speak about because that is where the copper is located. In reply to: Once a mining claim has been approved the claimant gains the right to develop and extract minerals. No other use of the land is permissible. In the pursuit of minerals the claimant can construct fences, build houses for full-time employees, and use as much timber as is necessary for the mining operation. Mining claims are considered real property and as such can be bought, sold, transferred, leased, rented, willed or inherited. bold emphasis mine. Quote source: US Federal Mining law.
Quoting general mining law is probably not all that useful unless you understand the specifics of this particular situation, and how the law would then apply. The Oak Flat campground area has been withdrawn from mining appropriation by the Federal Government since 1955. The copper lode of the Superior mine has played out--and is gone. That mine stopped operating in the mid 1990s. The resolution ore body lies quite far away from and several thousand feet deeper than the Superior mine deposit did. It is different in both character and location from the existing mine. We believe that extralateral rights, which is what you are talking about, would not apply to this quite separate ore body. Our mining engineers and legal experts in this field agree.
The last full-blown litigation over extralateral mining rights occured some 70 years ago, as far as we can tell, so there is much gray area and the case law is rather archaic. Anyway, we hope it won't come down to that.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Dec 23, 2004, 3:46 AM
Post #59 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Well, here is the thing about this particular mine site. Resolution Copper does not own the land--we do.
Our mining laws are SO messed up it isn't even funny. I think its criminal to allow foreign owned companies to mine US resources, but what do I know, I'm just a climber.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
myrmidon
Dec 23, 2004, 4:07 AM
Post #60 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2004
Posts: 82
|
The Mining Law also provides for the patenting of mining claims whereby actual title of the land is passed from the Federal government to private ownership at the rate of $5 an acre for placer claims and $2.50 an acre for lode claims. The claimant is required to demonstrate the existence of valuable mineral deposits on the land. However, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1994 has included a moratorium on new mineral patent applications.
Good luck, Curt. I apologize for the perception that I am being antagonistic to you. I have never bouldered at the location in question but I hope it can be saved and that you prevail.
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Dec 23, 2004, 4:31 AM
Post #61 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
In reply to: Our mining laws are SO messed up it isn't even funny. I think its criminal to allow foreign owned companies to mine US resources, but what do I know, I'm just a climber.
you definitely don't know very much. essentially all mining companies are huge multinational companies because the only way to continue to exist is by having lots of reserves - this involves having operations in a large number of countries. an awful lot of the really big mining companise are based in the USA, but not all of them. to forbid the companies that are not headquartered in the USA from having reserves in the very large and mineral rich USA would likely result in the heavy mining sanctions against USA based companies.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Dec 23, 2004, 4:37 AM
Post #62 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Thanks myrmidon.
I read this and the other thread with great interest. I must say, it was mighty hard to resist the temptation to go off half cocked. Just the appearence of impropriety makes it difficult.
But it's complex and every quick emotion seems to melt before I can find any words to describe them. But I think a guy like me, a far away and ignorant fool, a nobody, has to give the Verm at least the benefit of the doubt. I'll accept his word as truth until proven otherwise. Doesn't that sound right too?
Hey, they moved the monuments of Luxor didn't they? I've never been to QC, boulders or small cliffs? It's be funny to get them to move the whole kitten kaboodle.
Nah!!!
(still.... if you think about it they're going to move them one way or another, just get them to move bigger blocks! Put them back together in legoland)
Hey Curt, I find it interesting that you didn't 'out' Sherman over your disagreement or try to castigate him in this thread. Tip O The Hat to ya man, tip O the hat. That's class, to stand by a friend across a wide gulf. In case you thought no one noticed what the deed really meant... you're standing in there tall on your bouldering area too I see. Good show old son.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Dec 23, 2004, 4:57 AM
Post #63 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
I will no doubt get raked over the coals for pointing this out, but the delicious irony of this situation is too good to pass up. As if the so-called "bouldering revolution" could get any more grotesque than it already is, its cheif standard bearer, and vilifier of all things impure and unholy in climbing, turns out to be a flaming hypocrite. Rap bolting/sport climbing is bad, but turning one of the U.S.'s premier bouldering areas into a mining pit is OK. Sounds like Union Carbide could use a man like him in Bishop...
Also, anyone who voted Republican in the last go-round is, in reality, just as culpable as Sherman is in this. If YOU fit this description, you should have the courage of your convictions, and voice your support for the Bush administration's anti-environmental policies on this thread. Short-term economic gain at the expense of the environment is what YOU voted for, Remember? IT'S A LITTLE LATE TO COMPLAIN NOW.
I haven't been to a Phoenix Bouldering Contest in 15 years, but I wouldn't miss this next one for the world...
|
|
|
|
|
bill
Dec 23, 2004, 5:03 AM
Post #64 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2004
Posts: 1061
|
In reply to: Also, anyone who voted Republican in the last go-round is, in reality, just as culpable as Sherman is in this. If YOU fit this description, you should have the courage of your convictions, and voice your support for the Bush administration's anti-environmental policies on this thread. Short-term economic gain at the expense of the environment is what YOU voted for, Remember? IT'S A LITTLE LATE TO COMPLAIN NOW.
This is rather ignorant, given the fact that the Democratic Governor of Arizona, Janet Napalitano, has spoken out in favor of the project.
|
|
|
|
|
nwwaclimber
Dec 23, 2004, 7:03 AM
Post #65 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 28, 2004
Posts: 5
|
...duh...
...uhh, I have been reading for three years, but only postin' recently ('cause I really only know so much) ...
...but CURT don't talk sh*t...
...so, LISTEN TO THE LOCAL...
...duh...
...oops sorry if you didn't want to read that...
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
Dec 23, 2004, 8:09 AM
Post #66 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
I find the vilification of the mining industry in some of the earlier posts amusing. What the fuck do some of you people think your nuts, cams, and hexes are made out of? Soy? And that rubber on your shoes? It aint made out of recycled french fry oil. I'll guarantee you dat. Oh ya and that chalk? I wonder where that comes from?
|
|
|
|
|
phxtradrock
Dec 23, 2004, 8:11 AM
Post #67 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2004
Posts: 58
|
Sherman certainly is on the wrong side of this fight, but he is our backup when all else fails. I feel that it is necessary for the climbing community to play like we are America. We have two oppinions and it creates a win-win situation no matter what happens in the end. If QC remains open due to FOQC then thats good and if not then Sherman is my hero for getting something else opened up for new developement. I call this playing America because: if President Bush's war in Iraq fails - I can always pretend like I voted for Kerry! We are all climbers and we should not fight amongst ourselves. Having both the Friends of Queen Creek and Sherman gives us a better chance at still having rocks to climb on when this war is over.
|
|
|
|
|
mworking
Dec 23, 2004, 1:58 PM
Post #68 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 26, 2004
Posts: 8
|
I believe that Sherman is correct. With the current administration there isn’t a chance in h@ll that a mining company won’t get whatever they want on federal land. That said having outrage present during any negotiations will help Sherman get a better deal, so I think you will be doing all of us a favor by criticizing him and expressing that outrage! Like him I believe the having someone closer to what is really going on and trying to work thing out is a good thing for climbers. This is a little like playing good cop, bad cop. But, it sounds as if he began negotiations to easily and to early. He might have protested with us first, and then offered to negotiate. There is a problem with this though, it would have been harder for us to protest if we had appointed an official negotiator for us.
So, whether JS thought this out this carefully or not, I feel that we are getting the best we can get just as things are unfolding.
|
|
|
|
|
mister_mestizo
Dec 23, 2004, 6:14 PM
Post #69 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 30
|
Soooo many pragmatists, writing here. If John Muir had been a pragmatist, the Sierras would be much different today.
If I knew and loved QC, Sherman's choice of involvement would be like a slap in the face. It would be as if he said, "it's nice, but I can find you better." I don't think that anyone should have to stand for that. You don't question love and you don't put a price on it.
Pragmatists, step aside and let those who love this area lead the good fight. Remember that something you love dearly might end up next on the chopping block - would you enjoy seeing your colleagues turn into bidders?
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Dec 23, 2004, 6:57 PM
Post #70 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
It's difficult for me to understand the mentality of anyone advocating Sherman's position who is not a local. There really isn't that much good rock around Phoenix. Loosing Oak Flat would be a huge loss for locals. Moreover, given the role Oak Flat has played in the PBC contests I think the area holds a cultural value for climbers in general. It's saddening that more of you aren't outraged. Imagine the a mine going in at Cresciano and Fred Nicole telling locals, "no, it's okay, we'll get the mine to buy us another place" when there is no other place that's even close to comparable.
|
|
|
|
|
rijid
Dec 23, 2004, 7:37 PM
Post #71 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 42
|
Move the boulders.
|
|
|
|
|
robrox
Dec 23, 2004, 7:56 PM
Post #72 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2002
Posts: 10
|
In reply to: [rant] In response to myrmidon post: Have they? Define good. If you mean by mining hard rocks on Federal Land such as gold and then shipping them out of country without paying fees as has been allowed since the 1872 Mining Law which results in an estimated loss to the Treasury of 500,000,000 per year! If you also mean by causing heavy metals such as arsenic and cynaide to leak from tailings ponds into river systems, than ya, you're right. Yea for mines. [/rant] ......
Big bucks always lies as it needs to get more bigger bucks....John's a smart fellow, he will figure it out.
Sign me: the guy with the climbing tree in Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Dec 23, 2004, 8:07 PM
Post #73 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
In reply to: Bravo. Big bucks always lies as it needs to get more bigger bucks....John's a smart fellow, he will figure it out. Sign me: the guy with the climbing tree in Massachusetts
do your part to cut down on copper use! quit using electricity, electronics, computers, climbing gear, etc. if there isn't a market for copper, the mine won't open.
|
|
|
|
|
md3
Dec 23, 2004, 9:09 PM
Post #74 of 156
(17905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: 172
|
If anyone has them, lest see the numbers, or estimates? What is the difference in cost for the mining company between the method that would leave the surface intact and the destructive one? Second, I would think that people professionally associated with such litigation from organizations like the access fund or the bigger groups should be able to come up with an estimate as to how much it would cost the mining company to litigate all possible obstacles to their project and proposed land swap. Also, I think that little town there (Superior) has come to appreciate the climbing communities business, which may be more than that from a few additional miners. If there is a realistic chance that concerted efforts could result in the company choosing the low impact method from the outset, then any member of the climbing community who helps the mining company rather than helping with the resistance effort is a deserter. This is not my area of practice, so I don’t have any idea what the numbers are, but I suspect that the mining company would not be working with climbers at all if they didn’t have some concerns. On the other hand, if there is no realistic chance that the low-impact method could ever be made more financially appealing for the earth movers, than working with them to try to get something in return is a good idea.
Lets see the estimates from people who know something about this type of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
