Will we lose Oak Flat Campground to Mining?

[DesertBull]

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.)

 

 

Capitalism thrives on FAIR TRADE. Not corporate welfare.

 

SHRUGGING.

[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.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Yup- really that's my reply. Do you work at a cancer center too?

 

i am all for the mining endeavor but it will have negative affects on the community. I say turn it back into the mining town it once was and allow the residents to relocate.

[DesertBull]

The Superior Town Council revoked its written support for the mine in February 2013. Cooper said the town is grateful Resolution has donated at least $450,000 in Superior, but that’s a tiny fraction of the company’s resources and the amount it stands to gain from the mine.

“Our lack of support right now is based on the fact that there has to be a fair trade of what you do to the community, versus what you receive when you mine,” Cooper said. “The benefits they are telling us, as far as jobs and people coming into the community, I don’t believe it will materialize to the extent they believe.”

 

 

The town voted not to support the mine. Hmmmm.

 

The latest version of the land swap requires that the mine proposal undergo environmental impact studies under the National Environmental Policy Act before the land becomes private. That condition was a major sticking point for critics; earlier versions of the bill didn’t require analysis of the mine’s impact before Resolution acquired the public land, which is considered sacred to Native American tribes.

But the land-swap language still guarantees that Resolution will get title to the land 60 days after it publishes a final environmental impact statement, regardless of what the analysis finds, said Roger Featherstone, director of Tucson-based Arizona Mining Reform Coalition.

Once Resolution owns the land, the U.S. Forest Service has said it can no longer force the company to mitigate environmental impacts.

Because of the impending privatization and language in the land-swap bill, Forest Service officials say they are uncertain about how the mine’s oversight will work.

 

 

 

 

So, no matter what the environmental impact study says, the foreign company still gets the land. Sounds like a sweet deal!

 

 

Resolution’s acknowledgment on its website and in public meetings that the copper extracted from Superior likely will be shipped to copper smelters outside the U.S. for processing. The mining company is a subsidiary of mining giants Rio Tinto Group, based in the U.K., and BHP Billiton Ltd., based in Australia.“Most of the economic benefits of this mine will be going overseas. The profits will be going to two foreign companies. The copper will be going to China,”

 

 

 

SCORE!

[DesertBull]

Rio Tinto plans to build a new processing and concentrating plant (west plant) just west of

Superior. Rio Tinto plans to build all facilities outside of Superior’s town limits to make sure

that no direct tax benefit would go to he town

Rio Tinto would build a huge 1.5 billion ton toxic tailings dump west of Superior and east of

Queen Valley on public land managed by the Tonto National Forest in the Queen Creek watershed.

Rio Tinto would dump toxic tailings directly on the ground without any kind of liner.

Dams used to hold the tailings in place would be constructed from the tailings themselves.

RioTinto admits that tailings would generate acid pollution that would leach dangerous heavy

metals

Rio Tinto admits that acid generation from the tailings would begin within 3 months.

For at least the first 8 years of operation, the most toxic tailings would be dumped directly on

the ground and not surrounded by less toxic material

 

Sounds like a GREAT deal.....for the company. Not so much for the people.

 

 

[1uglydude]

You ask where you said something should be taken from someone, how about this right here?

 

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?

 

 

You don't seem to understand how mining claims work. The mining claims in question are the property of the mining company. At one time, domestic entities owned them, but they have found their way to this entity now. Heck, it's possible that at some point some old dude on a mule owned the claims. They get passed on and sold, just like any other property. The land swap at issue has nothing to do with giving one company or another the right to mine there. That's a non-issue. Only one owner can do it. Period. The land swap would allow for the facilities to be built on the surrounding surface, including roads, buildings, basic processing areas, etc.

 

Your assertion that an American company could be doing this mining if it could "outbid for McCain's support" would require that the property rights of the current owner be ignored. THAT's where you called for a taking.

 

As for "corporate welfare," 34a36b already did a great job explaining why the proposed swap is far from that. If you choose to ignore his informed and well-thought out comments, then that's your choice, but it doesn't give your response much credibility.

[DesertBull]

 

Maybe you guys should contact the Sahara Club. I'm sure they'd be glad to help you out.

Never heard of the "Sahara Club"

 

 

The Sahara is in Africa but I had no idea they had a country club. I'll look into it.

[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.

 

 

 

 

 

Yup- really that's my reply. Do you work at a cancer center too?

 

i am all for the mining endeavor but it will have negative affects on the community. I say turn it back into the mining town it once was and allow the residents to relocate.

 

 

 

No doctor I don't work at a cancer center....too

 

The residents can leave at any time, Kearney, Miami, San Manuel are only a few miles away.... you forget they are not forced to say there.....

 

I know a good number of people that grew up in Superior, all want the mine to open.... in fact many people in the town I grew up in (San Manuel) want the mine to open for a good job

[DesertBull]

You ask where you said something should be taken from someone, how about this right here?

 

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?

 

 

You don't seem to understand how mining claims work. The mining claims in question are the property of the mining company. At one time, domestic entities owned them, but they have found their way to this entity now. Heck, it's possible that at some point some old dude on a mule owned the claims. They get passed on and sold, just like any other property. The land swap at issue has nothing to do with giving one company or another the right to mine there. That's a non-issue. Only one owner can do it. Period. The land swap would allow for the facilities to be built on the surrounding surface, including roads, buildings, basic processing areas, etc.

 

Your assertion that an American company could be doing this mining if it could "outbid for McCain's support" would require that the property rights of the current owner be ignored. THAT's where you called for a taking.

 

As for "corporate welfare," 34a36b already did a great job explaining why the proposed swap is far from that. If you choose to ignore his informed and well-thought out comments, then that's your choice, but it doesn't give your response much credibility.

 

 

 

We got ripped off on the swap. Plain and simple. It's not even one chunk of land. It's little, isolated areas. But yeah.... great deal. For someone. They get 2400 acres worth hundreds of billions. We get the shaft.

 

The company owns the mining rights, that is it. They don't own the land. I never said ANYTHING about taking those claims from them. Ever.

 

I asked why an American company could not mine it. You answered, fair enough. Thats a good reason the American company cant mine it. Thank you. Has nothing to do with stripping their claim and giving it tosomeone else. Rio Tito did not have property rights. They have a mining claim.

 

 

 

The federal government would get 5,344 acres:

• 147 acres of the Turkey Creek parcel in Gila County

• 148 acres of the Tangle Creek parcel in Yavapai County

• 149 acres of the Cave Creek parcel in Maricopa County

• 640 acres of the East Clear Creek parcel in Coconino County

• 110 acres of the Apache Leap South End parcel in Pinal County

• 3,050 acres of the Lower San Pedro River lands in Pinal County

• 160 acres of the Dripping Springs area in Gila and Pinal counties

• 940 acres of the Appleton Ranch area in Santa Cruz County

[1uglydude]

 

You ask where you said something should be taken from someone, how about this right here?

 

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?

 

 

You don't seem to understand how mining claims work. The mining claims in question are the property of the mining company. At one time, domestic entities owned them, but they have found their way to this entity now. Heck, it's possible that at some point some old dude on a mule owned the claims. They get passed on and sold, just like any other property. The land swap at issue has nothing to do with giving one company or another the right to mine there. That's a non-issue. Only one owner can do it. Period. The land swap would allow for the facilities to be built on the surrounding surface, including roads, buildings, basic processing areas, etc.

 

Your assertion that an American company could be doing this mining if it could "outbid for McCain's support" would require that the property rights of the current owner be ignored. THAT's where you called for a taking.

 

As for "corporate welfare," 34a36b already did a great job explaining why the proposed swap is far from that. If you choose to ignore his informed and well-thought out comments, then that's your choice, but it doesn't give your response much credibility.

 

 

 

We got ripped off on the swap. Plain and simple. It's not even one chunk of land. It's little, isolated areas. But yeah.... great deal. For someone. They get 2400 acres worth hundreds of billions. We get the shaft.

 

The company owns the mining rights, that is it. They don't own the land. I never said ANYTHING about taking those claims from them. Ever.

 

I asked why an American company could not mine it. You answered, fair enough. Thats a good reason the American company cant mine it. Thank you. Has nothing to do with stripping their claim and giving it tosomeone else. Rio Tito did not have property rights. They have a mining claim.

 

 

 

The federal government would get 5,344 acres:

• 147 acres of the Turkey Creek parcel in Gila County

• 148 acres of the Tangle Creek parcel in Yavapai County

• 149 acres of the Cave Creek parcel in Maricopa County

• 640 acres of the East Clear Creek parcel in Coconino County

• 110 acres of the Apache Leap South End parcel in Pinal County

• 3,050 acres of the Lower San Pedro River lands in Pinal County

• 160 acres of the Dripping Springs area in Gila and Pinal counties

• 940 acres of the Appleton Ranch area in Santa Cruz County

 

 

The land is not worth "hundreds of billions," the mining claims are worth that, and they already own them. You strip away the value of the mining claims, and the land isn't worth all that much. If you want to charge them a premium for the land based on the value of claims they already own, then that, my friend, is an illegal taking in violation of the Constitution.

 

[34a36b]

RE: Desert Bull comments about our "savior" McCain

 

I'm actually surprised McCain is supporting a project favored by the Tea Party. Progressive McCain sides with the progressive greens a lot more than any of the Tea Party candidates do.

[QCwtAddict]

"Significant economic impact

 

The Resolution Copper mine will be a significant economic engine for the region, employing an estimated 1,400 workers directly while creating another 2,300 jobs indirectly. These jobs are projected to generate total wages of approximately US$220 million a year. The mine is expected to generate US$61.4 billion in economic benefits to Arizona over its lifetime, adding nearly US$20 billion to local, state and federal tax coffers."

 

Sounds like Rio Tinto and BHP are gonna be really sticking it to Arizona/Superior.

[34a36b]

"fair trade" sounds like progressive speak to me. They're never against capitalism, or mining, just this current policy or particular project. But I have never seen any green organization endorse any mine, even though they're not against mining...

 

I'd like to ask the doctor what studies show that mining towns like Superior have a higher cancer rate for non-smokers than a comparable community without a mine? I am unaware of any, well maybe Green organizations have made some biased ones, but what about the AMA? This isn't the 19th century - visit a mine sometime to see what the conditions truly are, and I'll visit a cancer center and read some studies.

 

Yes, nobody is held captive in mining towns. I know a very active Anti-mining person who "lives in fear because of the air and water they breathe", yet after testifying this for years, they moved from one NM mining town (without any proposed projects) to comparable climate here in AZ next to a mining project (so they can join the fray as "an impacted resident" - boo hoo). If they lived in fear, why didn't they move to the 99.9% of the rest of the country that doesn't have mines? If they wants to campaign against mining, God bless 'em, but they can do that in "mine free" air and water and still have the same access to meetings and websites. it's an act. They knew they were moving to an active mine that has never shut down since starting in the 50's unlike most other mines. So the mine wasn't "inactive" at the time... The mines are the dominant land form!

[Snapshot]

RE: Desert Bull comments about our "savior" McCain

 

I'm actually surprised McCain is supporting a project favored by the Tea Party. Progressive McCain sides with the progressive greens a lot more than any of the Tea Party candidates do.

McCain sides with whoever will fatten his and his buddies wallets. McCain is currently on the warpath to drive the Tea Party out of the state.

 

Obama was going to give a $3000 credit to any business that hires an amnesty illegal with a work permits.(Per Person)

 

Jobs are great. Just depends on who they give them too. The state and the Fed's get their tax revenue which they will blow anyway.

 

This whole deal is nothing but a giant lipstick covered pig.

 

And to quote DB " We all get the shaft" is correct. These foreign companies come over here and rape us, and laugh all the way to the bank.

[DesertBull]

Enjoy your hole in the ground and toxic waste guys. I'm off to Picketpost MNT, while I still can, to chase pigs.

[DesertBull]

"fair trade" sounds like progressive speak to me.

 

 

HAHA...what a joke.