Will we lose Oak Flat Campground to Mining?

[Swivelhead]

Read an article a week ago detailing the project. Apparently they've bored a hole 28' in diameter 6900 feet deep. Spent a billion dollars doing it. The engineering involved it getting the mine into production is simply amazing.

 

The land swap mentioned (what we get) is a 6 mile long strip of riparian habitat along the San Pedro somewhere. That and a ton of local jobs. Mining, logging, farming, ranching and industry in general is what makes our country. Get on with it!

[1uglydude]

My point was not about jobs or a freakin camp ground. There are not any American mining companies that do this or are there just not any American companies that could outbid for McCains support?

 

I bet you anything that what this company is swamping is not worth jack squat compared to what they are getting.

 

Then you'd lose that bet. Doesn't take much research to see what the swap entails.

 

Also, McCain can't control who owns the mining claims on the land in question. If an American-owned mining company had been first to the table on the underlying mining claims, then they'd be the one asking for the land exchange to allow for development.

 

[1uglydude]

Read an article a week ago detailing the project. Apparently they've bored a hole 28' in diameter 6900 feet deep. Spent a billion dollars doing it. The engineering involved it getting the mine into production is simply amazing.

 

The land swap mentioned (what we get) is a 6 mile long strip of riparian habitat along the San Pedro somewhere. That and a ton of local jobs. Mining, logging, farming, ranching and industry in general is what makes our country. Get on with it!

 

One of the engineering experts I dealt with said that one of the biggest challenges is making sure their equipment works that far down. They're so deep that the earth's temperature melts weak components and parts.

[Guest 300ultramag.]

I forsee Superior residents developing lung cancer from this endeavor. tilling all of that crud into the air = no bueno

 

They should buy out the residence of Superior as well. Turn it into a mining community. than knock it down when there done.

[Snapshot]

Mine land-swap vote imminent in Senate

December 09, 2014 9:00 am • By Emily Bregel

Enlarge Photo

Related Documents

San Carlos Apache Tribe statement of opposition

Apache tribe distressed by privatization of sacred land

A former chairman said he felt "sick" that land-swap is now in the national defense bill. Read more

The land-swap bill

The bill transfers ownership of 2,400 acres of Tonto National Forest to Resolution Copper Mining LLC. The land includes the 760-acre Oak Flat Withdrawal Area, deemed off-limits to mining by a 1955 land order signed by President Dwight Eisenhower. The bill would overturn that order. Resolution Copper would acquire the public land in exchange for 5,300 acres of land it currently owns.

Block-cave mining

 

Resolution Copper plans to use block-cave mining, a cheaper and less labor-intensive method than the cut-and-fill mining historically used in Superior. Some opponents say they would consider supporting the mine if it did not use block-cave mining.

Block-cave excavates a large amount of rock and leaves a mountain-sized void underground, making it more likely the surface will collapse. Cut-and-fill extracts a tunnel of rock, removes the ore above ground and returns 80 percent of waste into the ground, stabilizing the surface and reducing waste.

 

The Resolution Copper mine will produce about 1.7 billion tons of waste tailings.

A U.S. Senate decision is imminent on legislation that would ease the way for a massive copper mine 100 miles north of Tucson.

The Senate could vote Wednesday or Thursday on the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a bill to give 2,400 acres of national forest land near Superior to a foreign mining company.

 

Opponents are outraged that legislators inserted the hotly contested land swap into a must-pass piece of legislation at the 11th hour.

“They’re trying to sneak it through,” said Superior Town Councilman Gilbert Aguilar, a former miner. “That’s pretty desperate to me.”

The land-swap legislation has repeatedly failed to pass both houses of Congress since it was first introduced in 2005. It was inserted into the defense spending bill at the behest of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — who has been pushing for the land swap since 2005 — as well as House supporters Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., and Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz.

“This is not unusual,” Gosar said in a phone interview. The bill is not completely unrelated to the defense bill, he said, because “critical mineral access” is in the best interest of the military.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said in a Monday email, “Sen. McCain will be extremely proud if the Resolution Copper land exchange is enacted into law. There is clearly a strategic national interest in increasing America’s domestic production of copper.”

Mining company Resolution Copper, jointly owned by U.K.-based Rio Tinto Group and Australia-based BHP Billiton Ltd., wants access to a massive copper deposit 7,000 feet beneath the land parcel, just east of Superior. The mine would generate enough copper to meet 25 percent of U.S. demand.

 

The bill easily passed the House last week but may face roadblocks in the Senate.

Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, are opposed to the package of public-lands bills added to the defense act, including the land-swap bill and provisions to expand wilderness areas and streamline oil and gas permits, The Associated Press reported.

Coburn said in a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that he would “utilize all procedural options at my disposal as a United States senator” to block the quick passage of the bill.

He objected to the tactic of adding unrelated legislation to a bill, saying the process “will preclude any amendments or substantive debate.”

 

A TOWN DIVIDED

The town of Superior is on the verge of bankruptcy and has been economically devastated since its Magma Mine closed in the 1980s. Many residents say the town is in desperate need of the jobs a new mine could provide.

The mine would generate $61 billion over its lifetime and bring 1,400 direct jobs to the area.

“It would be a godsend if this bill passes,” said Nancy Vogler, a Superior resident of eight years.

“We’ve got so many hands out (asking) for everything from diapers to food for children,” she said. “You just can’t donate enough stuff to keep the families together.”

But the town of Superior rescinded its written support for the mine project last February. Town Council members felt they couldn’t get assurances from Resolution to guarantee the town benefits from the mine and that local resources, including the water supply, would be protected.

 

Resolution Copper won’t commit to contributing a one-tenth of 1 percent mining tax to the town, said Town Attorney Steve Cooper.

Resolution Copper spokesman Dave Richins said Monday that he could not comment on ongoing negotiations with the town. He said he won’t comment on the land swap until after the Senate makes it decision.

Some Superior residents say the town would ultimately be hurt by the destruction of the natural beauty and popular hiking, birding, canyoneering and rock-climbing areas around the mine site. Town leaders are trying to diversify Superior’s economy with ecotourism and other industries, so Superior isn’t solely reliant on the boom-and-bust mining industry, town leaders say.

Superior is a mining town at heart, said Aguilar, the council member, and he doesn’t want to fight Resolution Copper.

“We want the mine here. All we’re trying to do is make sure Superior is OK for the long haul. We want to make sure our grandkids are going to be OK,” Aguilar said. “My loyalty is to Superior, not to the mine.”

 

COMPROMISES

Supporters say the bill now contains compromises to ensure the mining company can’t avoid crucial environmental studies if the land-swap bill passes.

But critics say those compromises don’t go far enough. While the latest version of the bill requires Resolution Copper to conduct environmental studies before it can get title to the land, the bill still guarantees that the mining company ultimately gets the title to the land — regardless of what those studies reveal.

If the land remained public, the mining project would be dependent on U.S. Forest Service approval and would have to complete the entire process required by the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

Opponents say the title transfer should be predicated on approval from the Forest Service and the secretary of agriculture, who conduct the NEPA process.

 

“The only reason to go through the NEPA process is to provide information to the decision-makers,” said Roger Featherstone of the Tucson-based Arizona Mining Reform Coalition. “In every version of the bill, no matter how NEPA was truncated, there was never any opportunity for the secretary of agriculture to say ‘no.’ If you remove any decision-making power, then NEPA ends up being an exercise in futility.”

SACRED LAND

The San Carlos Apache Tribe considers Oak Flat, at the mining site, to be among its sacred places. Resolution Copper projects the crater at Oak Flat resulting from block-cave mining will be 1,000 feet deep at its center and 2 miles wide.

McCain spokesman Rogers pointed to assurances in the bill that Native American tribes will have access to the Oak Flat campground until the area is deemed unsafe. The bill also designates the nearby cliffs at Apache Leap — from which Apache warriors are said to have jumped rather than be taken prisoner by U.S. troops — as under the protection of the Forest Service. It “ensures the cliffs cannot be damaged by the mine,” he said.

Opponents say Resolution Copper can’t guarantee the land collapse from mining won’t affect the steep cliffs that tower over the town of Superior.

Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell said the current version of the bill removes a requirement that the mining company consult with tribe members about the mining project.

“That is profoundly disappointing,” she told the news media last weekend. “It is really important that when there are perhaps significant unintended consequences, as is the case here with the tribe, that we use all the tools in our toolbox to make sure that their voice is heard and that it influences the future course of that project.”

[Antmo23]

I hunt around that area, access is already sketchy at best, don't want to lose anymore access. And land 2 hours away doesn't interest me as much as land 45mins from my front door.

[DesertBull]

Superior is a mining town at heart, said Aguilar, the council member, and he doesn’t want to fight Resolution Copper.

“We want the mine here. All we’re trying to do is make sure Superior is OK for the long haul. We want to make sure our grandkids are going to be OK,” Aguilar said. “My loyalty is to Superior, not to the mine.”

 

 

Sorry, You got McCained.

[34a36b]

RE: DesertBull's last comment on page 1

 

Yes there are American mining companies who mine copper in AZ, but there are no American mining companies who own the ore body in Superior. Well, it used to be owned by an American mining company, but they got bought out.

 

Think of it as home ownership. Once you buy a house, I can't simply go and offer the mortgage company more money and get it out from under you. As long as you're living up to your obligations, you are protected by a contract. At least that is the way it has worked for 200 years, but maybe that is another surprise change thanks to the Affordable Care Act...

 

I wouldn't want to buy (or trade for a vacant lot next to your house). You may if you have a small lot and want to build a workshop or garage next door (which is partly the purpose for the mining companies land swap). And another benefit to them is it's a buffer so someone else doesn't move next door and then complain.

 

No they aren't being selected to do the land swap because they have deeper pockets than an American company. No American mining company has interest in the property so none aren't eager to do a land swap for Oak Flats.

 

And yes the company is doing the trade because they think the land swap is worth a lot more than what they are offering. Ford sold me my truck because they thought the price was worth the cost and effort to build the truck. I didn't think I was getting screwed, I thought the price asked was worth the benefit of having the truck...

 

They are swapping rare riparian habitat for relatively common scrub oak land. For our purposes (an appreciation for beautiful, unique habitat), we are getting a good deal. For their purposes, they get a buffer and flexibility to line out their project how they best think it should be (regardless if the land is appraised for much less than the land they're offering). A heck of a great deal for them.

 

Do we kill the deal because they get a proportionally bigger benefit from the swap than we do? The agencies are eager to do the deal because they get lands they are parcels they are excited about. I could care less, so should I be able to stop the deal because I'm not getting a few bucks under the table? If we hold Oak Flats, we are unable to capitalize on Resolutions planned use because we don't hold the mineral rights - they do. But if we take the deal, we can get a >2:1 land holding.

 

If I sell balls to a juggler, do I demand they pay more because they plan to make money from my product? A good deal doesn't always mean each person gets the same outcome. I still am getting a good deal whether the ball gathers dust or generates income for the buyer. Do I refuse to sell to a hunter because I think they are trying to shoot my best friend who is a deer? I apparently can't if it's a gay hunter...

 

I'd also like to point out that there is an American company that has been trying to do a land swap since 1994 at the Ray mine. ASARCO got the deal approved, was then sued and the swap upheld. Appealed again, and hopefully it will be resolved soon. Asarco also once owned Rosemont, and tried to swap for land around that project, and was stalled.

 

Asarco eventually went bankrupt and got bought by Mexico. Perhaps if they weren't harassed in court for every little business decision, by Green NGOs who are partially funded by my tax dollars, they may still be the American company that started mining copper since before Statehood...

 

Before I go off on another tangent, I'll simply say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Greens are by far more threatening to hunting than mining companies. Mining companies are allowed to explore and claim less and less land each year. Greens however keep getting more and more powerful and deeper engrained in our schools and entertainment industry. And while some of them are hunters and pro-gun, they are a minority.

 

We need to have rule of law. If people don't like the laws, they need to change the laws by electing representatives. We shouldn't instead demand our public officials bend the rules by fiat. Because at some point we will be abused when we are in the minority, regardless if the law is on our side. Rule of law is what separates us from Banana Republics.

 

Now if McCain and the mining company are doing something illegal, then that is at their peril. Remember Rick Renzi? Heck, McCain has a lot of enemies, so if he's doing something dirty, odds are he'll get caught, and we'll be glad he got involved! Does a kid graduating High School benefit any less because the deal is tainted if he is can find work without having to move to Texas?

 

Sorry for the rant and thanks for reading. I don't mean this to be demeaning, and I'm not trying to insult anyone. Just trying to give an impassioned call to arms - we can't rely on most media outlets to give a fair accounting. Their side lies, some give impartial facts, but few go out of their way to point out the lies and misinformation...

 

I don't benefit from this other than getting 6 hours sleep tonight, but if I don't point out what I know, who will? Again, I work at a mine, so there is probably some subconscious satisfaction and bias to promote mining in general. So take it for what it is worth. Do a little more digging (no pun intended) and think what ye will. :-)

 

Happy hunting!

[34a36b]

Re: what 1ugly dude wrote:

 

True, there are 3 tough challenges in deep mining. I can't remember all three (one is heat, the other is seismic rock bursts because of the high ground pressures that deep). This mine will be the first time all 3 will be encountered...

 

 

Sorry to hear that Antmo23.

We used to hunt 36b about 2 hrs away because of the drug runners and bandits, and now hunt 34a about 20 minutes away. lol, now that I think about it, I'd probably be less bitter if we lost our 3 generation hunt area because of a legal billion dollar industry, rather than an illegal billion dollar industry. ;-)

[1uglydude]

The irony in what some have implied here (that vested mining rights should be taken from their actual owner...which happens to be a foreign corporation...and priority should be given to a domestic entity) is that the the socialist governments around the world would agree with them 110%. So much for "don't tread on me."

[reganranch]

Atlas is Shrugging. A few individuals here that need enlightenment please seek "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" and "Atlas Shrugged".

 

(Ayn Rand and Adam Smith are turning over in their graves.)

[Redman]

I forsee Superior residents developing lung cancer from this endeavor. tilling all of that crud into the air = no bueno

 

They should buy out the residence of Superior as well. Turn it into a mining community. than knock it down when there done.

 

 

really, this is your reply.... Superior was one of the largest mining towns, until the mine that built that town closed.

[Redman]

I have not been there for years been there for years but according to this article the area is going to be part of a land swap that McCain added to the defense spending act which will probably get approved by Thursday. Thoughts?

 

 

http://m.tucson.com/news/apache-tribe-distressed-by-privatization-of-sacred-land/article_c8f9f32c-80c0-11e4-a781-a7334409bcc3.html?mobile_touch=true

 

 

yes we will lose it and for good reason...

[DesertBull]

Here is what you RINO's adore. Slime ball politics lead by your savior McCain

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/john-mccain-arizona-tea-party-113849.html

[DesertBull]

The irony in what some have implied here (that vested mining rights should be taken from their actual owner...which happens to be a foreign corporation...and priority should be given to a domestic entity) is that the the socialist governments around the world would agree with them 110%. So much for "don't tread on me."

 

 

PLEASE show me where I said something should be taken from anyone. Please.....I'll be waiting.