Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Looks like Excelsior Mining picked up about $4.8 million additional cost liability for the eventual asset retirement obligations for the Johnson Mining Camp. That'll affect the overall "all in cost" somewhat (not sure how much per pound of copper). Total asset retirement obligation (for reclamation/remediation of the Johnson Mining Camp) is about $9.3 million, up about $4.8 million from prior amount.
See page 8 of the recently released interim financial statement for the 6-month period ended on June 30, 2018:
https://www.sedar.com/CheckCode.do;jsessionid=0000T5lh1k3k7hwxjbI78Z96dS6:188setvlh
I don't know. It doesn't prevent Excelsior Mining and the petitioners from reaching a compromise agreement, and if anything, I would think the delay would provide an incentive to Excelsior to try to reach a quick compromise agreement.
Problem with a compromise agreement is that the petitioner consists of a variety of activist groups -- and trying to herd them into an agreement may be difficult and time consuming.
I'm not real keen on the reasons cited by EPA Region 9 for the delay -- about having to consult with EPA Headquarters in DC on several of the appeal issues -- primarily, the Indian consultation issue and NEPA equivalency and cumulative effects issues -- and having to consult with EPA Region 8 on possible parallels between similar raised issues with a UIC permit Region 8 tried to issue. It's not a good sign if multiple layers of EPA counsel and program staff have to coordinate on responses. The old "too many chefs spoil the broth" concern.
I really hope Excelsior Mining can reach a reasonable, QUICK compromise with the appeal petitioners so that we can proceed forward with financing and construction. Operative words -- reasonable, and quick.
The petitioner gets 15 days to reply after EPA/Excelsior Mining file their responses to the appeal petition. So if EPA and Excelsior have until October 12th to file their responses, add 15 days + 7 days (extension), and that is about November 5th.
The petitioner can't raise new issues or arguments in the reply brief. They have to focus on replying to the issues addressed in the response briefs filed by EPA and Excelsior Mining.
Just a heads up/fyi -- some other party who's not an appeal petitioner could decide to join in the appeal with a amicus curiae brief (e.g., Earthworks, another mining company). Any interested person may file an amicus brief in any appeal pending before the Environmental Appeals Board under 40 CFR 124.19, and the deadline for filing such brief is 15 days after the filing of the response brief (15 days after October 12th). That sucks that we won't know if someone else wants to join in with an amicus curiae intervention -- would just add more delay as then Excelsior and EPA might have to address the arguments made by the Amicus (if the amicus curiae intervenor is siding with the appeal petitioner).
Singh
Jones Day apparently isn't one of the two firms representing Excelsior Mining. The Notice of Appearance and recent request for delay indicates that Stephen A. Owens from Squire Patton Boggs LLP is teaming with Carla Consoli of Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP as counsel for Excelsior Mining.
Patton Boggs is a heavy hitter law firm -- very well respected.
The Definitive Feasibility Study was filed on June 25, 2018. Need a technical report review of the DFS within 45 days. It was filed on August 7, 2018. Link below to the NI 43-101 Technical Report for Clean TeQ Sunrise Project:
https://www.sedar.com/GetFile.do?lang=EN&docClass=24&issuerNo=00043989&issuerType=03&projectNo=02803493&docId=4365133
If the link doesn't work, then go to www.sedar.com, search database, and enter "CleanTeQ" for company name, and you'll see a list of SEDAR filings for them. Scroll to the end of the list, and you'll see that the Technical Report was filed yesterday. It has the relevant info you probably were interested in (that assumes you're interested in what Clean TeQ has to say) from the DFS.
Again, wrong board. Excelsior Mining has over $20 million in the bank, with financing waiting as soon as the permit is finalized, and construction and production in 12 months.
Your other investment has what? $483 thousand in the bank?
As I said, you posted your message on the wrong board.
Wrong board again.
Interesting. The "blackout" hint by the Board Chairman, and hearing CEO say that there couldn't be insider buying right now because of ongoing events precluding them from doing so -- hint at (my speculation) that a VWAP is being established by a lender and Excelsior Mining for financing purposes. I expect some equity portion in the financing, and the VWAP would establish the price of shares used for the equity part of the financing (which, ugh, would be bad at the current share prices). The financing agreement would likely have a blackout clause for Excelsior Mining's directors, officers, and employees, so as to prevent them from increasing the VWAP calculation.
Could be other reasons, too. Maybe insider knowledge of ongoing discussions with the permit appellants, so they're under a gag directive?
Could be a possible M&A, but I doubt this. Heard the CEO say that the big companies such as BHP or Rio probably wouldn't be interested in acquiring Excelsior Mining due to relatively small scale operation of Excelsior Mining. He also said he was not aware of any discussions on consolidating the various ISR-method copper projects in the region.
All of the above are speculative WAGs, so consider them as such.
Nope, that link I posted doesn't work either.
Below is the text of the letter, without the enclosure (info sheet on the ADR process):
August 3, 2018
Jeffrey C. Parsons, Senior Attorney
Western Mining Action Project
P.O. Box 349 Lyons, CO 80540
Rich Campbell
Office of Regional Counsel, (ORC-2)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Counsels:
Re: Excelsior Mining Arizona, Inc. Gunnison Copper Project Permit Number: R9UIC-AZ3-FY16-1 Appeal Number: UIC 18-04
The Environmental Appeals Board ("Board") has an alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") program to assist parties in resolving disputes before the Board. Participation is completely voluntary. Please refer to the enclosed Alternative Dispute Resolution Program Information Sheet for more information on the Board's ADR program.
If you would like to participate in the Board's ADR program, you must notify the Clerk of the Board no later than August 17, 2018. Because ADR will not take place absent approval from all parties, the Board encourages consultation with opposing counsel or representative prior to notifying the Board. A joint notification of the parties' interest in participating in this program is preferred. As stated in the enclosed information sheet, if all parties agree to participate in the Board's ADR program, the matter will be stayed for a limited time and the parties will be required to submit brief written summaries of the disputed issues. In limited circumstances, the Board may determine that use of the ADR program is not appropriate.
If the Board does not receive a request to participate in ADR from both parties, either jointly or individually, by August 17, 2018, the matter will remain on the EAB's docket for resolution. You may inform the Clerk of your interest either through the Board's electronic filing system,• by facsimile at (202) 233-0121, or by letter filed with the Clerk of the Board by the deadline.
Please note that this letter does not extend any existing deadlines for submissions to the Board.
Sincerely,
Erika Durr
Clerk of the Board
Enclosure
cc: Excelsior Mining Arizona, Inc.
Concord Place, Suite 300
2999 North 44th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Thanks Suerte.
Might try the following link, to see if it works directly by click.
https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.nsf/All%20Content%20-%20Web/69DC95A0129865F0852582DE00520FFA/$File/Matthew%20Nykiel%20et%20al.pdf
It should open the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) offer to the parties (EPA Region 9 and permit appellants, with info copy to Excelsior Mining) to use alternative dispute resolution if they think that might be productive. Parties have until August 17th to decide, otherwise EAB will continue the normal permit appeal process for EAB resolution.
Addendum to post about the law firm:
JJ didn't provide the names of the actual attorneys who would be handling the appeal. I did some research, and those attorneys whose bios are linked are my best guess based on researching the law firm counsel.
Excelsior Mining says they're having ongoing discussions with the appellants to try to resolve the appeal (i.e., settlement negotiations), and that Excelsior Mining is "optimistic" about the discussions. Optimally, they reach an agreement quickly, that doesn't significantly increase the CAPEX amount needed for financing (e.g., a couple of guard monitoring wells or higher remediation performance bond), and we see a rescission of the permit appeal by the appellants.
I doubt that would occur before August 16th, as Ms. Nancy Rumrill, the permit program manager from EPA Region 9, is out of the office until then. Any "settlement" would likely require incorporation of any agreed upon requirements into the permit (if I was the attorney representing the appellant, I would advise that it be included in the permit).
But that assumes there would be some sort of agreement/settlement, which may not happen. In that case, we'll have to wait for the Environmental Appeals Board decision. Excelsior Mining thinks, as we do, that the appeal will eventually be resolved in our favor.
Thanks PMK. I got the law firm info from JJ. Below is a little bit of more detail regarding their representation -- the Phoenix law firm and attorney, and the San Fran law firm (Jones Day branch) and attorney. You can see their bios. (Note to all: Please do not try to contact them.)
Lewis, Roca, Rothgerber, Christie law firm in Phoenix. See link below to bio of their lead attorney on the permitting issue:
https://www.lrrc.com/Carla-Consoli#overview
In San Francisco, Excelsior uses Jones Day law firm (huge law firm with offices throughout the world). The resident environmental attorney in the San Francisco office is likely Tom Donnelly, bio link below:
http://www.jonesday.com/tmdonnelly/
EPA Region 9 sent the following Notice of Stay (of the permit) to Excelsior. No surprise -- essentially saying the entire permit is not in effect pending resolution of the appeal. I got a copy of the letter by email from EPA Region 9, I guess, due to my earlier inquiries to them about the permit
August 1, 2018
Clerk of the Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Appeals Board .
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Mail Code 1103M Washington, DC 20460-0001
Stephen Twyerould, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer and President Excelsior Mining Arizona, Inc.
Concord Place, Suite 300 2999 North 44 th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
RE: Stay of Contested Permit for Excelsior Mining Arizona, Inc.
Permit No. R9UIC-AZ3-FY16-1 ("Permit") EAB Appeal Nos. 18-04
In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 124.16, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
(EPA) is providing notice of a stay of contested Permit conditions in connection with the Class III
In Situ Production of Copper Permit No. R9UIC-AZ3-FY16-1 for Excelsior Mining Arizona, Inc.'s
Gunnison Copper Project ("Project"). The EPA issued the final permit on June 22, 2018 and
transmitted the Notice of Final Permit Decision to Excelsior Mining Arizona, Inc., and other
interested parties, by email and by standard mail on June 25, 2018.
A Joint Petition for Review (Docket No. UIC 18-04) was timely filed on July 25, 2018 by Jeffrey C.
Parsons, Senior Attorney Western Mining Action Project, on behalf of five entities: Dragoon
Conservation Alliance, Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club,
Center for Biological Diversity, and Patagonia Area Resource Alliance (the "Petitioners"). Based on
a review of the Petition, the EPA concludes that the Petitioners contest the entire Permit for the
new Project.
When the EPA is notified that a Petition for Review has been filed, the EPA is required to issue a
notification to the EAB, the applicant, and all other interested parties of the uncontested and
severable conditions of the final permit. The EPA is notifying you that the effect of the Petition
for Review, per 40 C.F.R. § 12 4.16(a)(l ), involving a new facility or injection/recovery wells, is that the
applicant shall be without a Permit for the proposed new facility, pending final agency action.
If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact David Albright at (415) 972-3971 or
Rich Campbell in our Office of Regional Counsel at (415) 972-3870.
Tomas Torres
Director, Water Division
From ArizonaBilly's post on Stockhouse message board. Very recent YouTube video of Arizona Mining Review's interview/tour of Taseko Florence Copper ISR pilot project. The project should be similar to Excelsior Mining's Gunnison project ops, albeit the Florence project is much smaller in scale. Expect their copper ISR pilot project production in about a month and a half.
Was on it, too. Same for me … keeping my shares.
Post by @toddw at the CEO.CA #MIN board indicated that the initial drop in Excelsior Mining's share price (liquidity sell off when the final permit was announced) was at least partially the result of 2 small off-shore hedge funds who participated in the December 2017 private placement selling nearly all of their shares for a quick profit (and possibly had some prescient belief that copper prices were going to fall).
Those selling hedge funds had about 1.6 million shares they liquidated in a short period.
So, the share price we're seeing today is a result of that precipitous selling, drop in copper prices, and the US-China trade war tiff (latter probably a big factor in recent drop in copper prices).
Once the permit issue is resolved (favorably), expect financing to close quickly. Expect Excelsior Mining to seek about $75 million in financing for CAPEX and SG&A buffer. After construction starts, 12 months to copper production.
Appeal period apparently has ended. The EPA June 22, 2018 notice of final permit decision said:
"Any person who filed comment on the draft permit or participated in the public hearing may petition the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) to review any condition of the permit decision under 40 CFR §124.19(a) within 30 days after service of this notice of EPA’s final permit decision."
Because the final permit was to be effective August 1, 2018, I assumed that the permit appeal period was until August 1st. Not so. I believe Excelsior Mining's opinion is that the permit appeal period closed Thursday of last week.
In short, it looks like there is only one active appeal. Excelsior Mining said that they are actively in discussions with the appealing party, and that Excelsior Mining is "optimistic" on the discussions.
What that means, who knows, but again, my guess is that Excelsior Mining may be considering whether to install a couple of guard monitoring wells to appease the appealing party to convince them to rescind their appeal. May be a little bump up in CAPEX requirements, but imho, worth it if we can avoid a 60-90 day delay and get the financing closed ASAP.
Would be sweet to see another appeal rescission letter in the near future.
In addition to Escondida (world's largest copper producing mine) labor negotiations and potential prolonged strike, the workers at the second largest copper producing mine, Codelco's Chuquicamata copper mine, now on strike. Chuquicamata, a century old mine, is running out of copper ore by open pit mining, so having to resort to underground mining which will result in huge layoff of workers.
We're going to see a huge spike in copper prices if/when Trump and China resolve the trade war threats.
http://www.mining.com/codelcos-chuquicamata-copper-mine-hit-strike-blockage/
Citigroup: ""prepare for a decade of Dr. Copper on steroids”. Good, balanced article on outlook on copper supply and prices.
http://www.mining.com/copper-price-bears-shrug-280b-china-stimulus-package/
Totally agree with you, Jinxed. If the Apache tribes didn't voice concerns and join the appeal, then the purported failure to properly consult with the tribes is a non-issue. In my experience, the state historic preservation officers (SHPO) are very conservative in ensuring potentially affected Native American tribes are properly consulted.
I think EPA Region IX did a pretty damn good job in trying to make the proposed final permit pretty much bulletproof.
I think the issues raised (or, actually, repeated) in the appeal will be successfully resolved in Excelsior Mining's favor. The real issue is the amount of time that it will take to get the EAB's final decision. Not sure whether this will be a purely paper case, or whether the EAB will ask for a hearing/oral arguments. If the latter, it'll take more time. If a purely paper case, then the appeal can be resolved in 60 to 90 days, depending on the amount of further info that the EAB requests.
EPA Reg IX and Excelsior Mining will have 30 days to file their written responses to the issues raised in the appeal. EAB will need time to review the petition and responses, and may ask for further info/technical docs. Hopefully, some of the issues can be readily dismissed (e.g., no consultation required, or appealing party not having standing to object on the issue of proper consultation).
That assumes that the appealing party doesn't withdraw its appeal. There is a possibility that they may withdraw, depending on any ongoing discussions between Excelsior Mining and the appealing party. Additionally, the appealing party has to deal with local community pressure, as well, since the appeal is thwarting economic infusion of resources that the local school district/municipality could desperately use.
If Excelsior Mining offers some minor concessions (installing a couple of guard wells or increased financial assurances in the form of increased dollar value performance bonds), I would think the appealing group would claim a hollow victory and withdraw its appeal. jmho.
I think it (likelihood of a major appeal being priced into the current share price) was to a large extent.
But there's the lag factor (one or two days) on news getting out to all of the shareholders, so I foresee some selling on Friday and days after, until we get further guidance on how long it will likely take before the EAB acts upon the appeal, where the share price drops down to 70 cents (USD).
I'm resigned to just holding my shares and seeing how the appeal, and subsequent financing, works out. I may pick up some more shares if the sp gets absurdly low (below 70 cents).
Such a crying shame on the delays that Excelsior Mining/its team have suffered through this whole process. They try to keep on schedule, but factors beyond their control try to, unjustly imho, derail those efforts.
They need to persevere with patience and determination. All will be good in the end.
Plan as in brace for bad news. I'm not selling as a result of the appeal.
for what it's worth, I sent a couple of emails to the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the President of the Sierra Club (national), extracts below:
From: xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 1:40 PM
To: michael.brune@sierraclub.org; sierra.mail@sierraclub.org
Mr. Brune and Sierra Club
I apologize for directly reaching out to you, but want you to at least be aware of my email (below) to the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club. I sincerely hope that the Sierra Club provides guidance to its chapters on being more judicious on what they oppose. I would have hoped that the Sierra Club would actually try to support more environmentally responsible, innovative methods to conduct activities that traditionally have been environmentally intrusive. To oppose an innovative copper mining method that has been strenuously vetted with the Arizona Dept of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and US EPA Region IX, that does not use open pit mining, and is situated in a low populated area that does not pose threats to biological diversity or a threat to a sole source aquifer of drinking water is, quite frankly, over-the-top radical protectionism. I have greatly appreciated the Sierra Club's charter and efforts, in general. However, associating the Sierra Club name with the Grand Canyon Chapter's efforts to derail the Gunnison, AZ, mining project taints your organization nationally.
I hope you are able to read their petition for appeal -- it represents a "throw in the kitchen sink, too" approach. For example, claiming that EPA Region IX didn't perform the functional equivalent of a NEPA cumulative effects analysis in its permit decision making process, and that EPA Region IX failed to follow the consultation requirements in the National Historic Preservation Act regulations by failing to consult with a couple of Apache tribes (note that the Apache tribes, as the purported offended parties, apparently didn't join in the appeal).
Very respectfully
xxxxxx
----------
From: xxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 1:19 PM
To: grand.canyon.chapter@sierraclub.org
Subject: Deeply saddened that you have appealed the Gunnison Mining UIC permit
First, I just want to provide some background info about me. I’m an environmental attorney, now retired, who believes in protection of the environment. I’m a grandfather, and I want my granddaughter to have the joys of experiencing what Mother Nature has so graciously provided us. I was overjoyed when Scott Pruitt had to step down. During my legal career, I had the opportunity to work with many talented and dedicated environmentalists and state and federal environmental regulators.
Second, yes, I am a stock shareholder in the mining company that is attempting to use in situ extraction/recovery of copper at the Gunnison, AZ, mining project. The only reason I was even interested in investing in that company/project was the thought that it wouldn’t be the horrendous open pit mining approach traditionally used for copper mining. The project would, instead, use a generally environmentally non-intrusive method in an area that would have minimal impacts to groundwater. The state (ADEQ) provided the necessary aquifer exemption, with a set of strenuous restrictions and conditions. Then, EPA Region IX proposed to issue a SDWA Class III UIC permit with similar strenuous conditions, and with the ability to reopen the permit or intervene if subsequent analyses showed the permit conditions were not adequately protective.
On July 25, 2018, your organization, along with several others in consortium fashion, appealed the proposed final permit to the EPA Environmental Appeals Board. Several of the arguments posed in the appeal are weak and, quite frankly, indicate a “throw in the kitchen sink” approach that I find disgusting for any organization that proclaims itself as trying to be a good environmental steward for the public. The fact that the “Sierra Club” name is even associated with that appeal causes me great consternation and doubt as to my prior respect/esteem for what “Sierra Club” represented.
I would hope that Sierra Club focus its time and resources on the myriad of mining, oil/gas, and other industrial projects that really, really pose a threat of harm to the environment. Your organization’s efforts to thwart a relatively benign, minor mining project that is trying to innovatively avoid harsh environmental impacts are, quite frankly, despicable and shows a “no quarter given” mentality to responsible mining efforts. I cannot stand ideologues, whether they are on the Left or Right.
I hope you all reconsider your actions, and focus on projects that really pose a threat to human health and the environment.
Very respectfully
xxxxxx
Pretty sloppy . . . Have to criticize their legal support (Jeffrey C. Parsons of the Western Mining Action Project, with P.O Box address in Lyons, CO).
In their appeal, they incorrectly cite to an outdated United States Code citation for the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). They cite to the old Title 16 provisions. In December 2014, those NHPA Title 16 provisions were recodified at (moved to) sections 300101 et seq. at Title 54 of the USC.
There were several grammatical errors in the petition.
Their arguments under the NHPA is that Excelsior Mining/EPA failed to properly consult with a couple of Apache tribes who claim historic and cultural ties to the lands on which the project will be conducted. Funny how none of those Apache tribes are listed as petitioners to the appeal (unless they have some membership in the "alliance" groups listed, but you'd think that would have been factually highlighted in the petition). My guess is that the Apache tribes said "nah, don't want to join on the petition for appeal", but the appeal petitioners decided "what the hell, let's throw the NHPA argument into the appeal anyhow". In short, they're arguing that the Indian tribes have been encroached upon without proper consultation, but the purported offended party (Indian tribes) didn't join in on the argument/appeal action.
As for their arguments that EPA failed to perform a functionally equivalent analysis that would have otherwise been required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), see the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision (concerning an EPA proposed permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act for uranium mining via UIC wells within a 3000 acre area) in Western Nebraska Resources Council vs EPA, opinion at link below:
https://openjurist.org/943/f2d/867/western-nebraska-resources-council-v-united-states-environmental-protection-agency
As for the arguments they make on the technical merits on whether the EPA permit conditions on Excelsior Mining's UIC operations are adequately protective, I'd defer to the hydrogeologists. The one argument the appeal group make that the permit conditions are not adequately protective because the permit defers modifications and additional conditions until the results of subsequent models or sampling results, I think that was somewhat addressed in the Western Nebraska Resources Council vs EPA case discussed above. That case strongly relied on the assumption that EPA retains sufficient regulatory authority to step in if and when sampling results/modelling results are subsequently provided to EPA per the permit conditions.
Oh, and why is the Center for Biological Diversity even listed as a petitioner in the appeal? Notice that the project's purported endangerment to the long-nose bat argument is not included in the petition (argument that Sharon Rock had made in her rescinded appeal). No allegations that any endangered/threatened species are adversely affected -- so, again, why is the Center for Biological Diversity even a party to this appeal? They're just trying to falsely portray an appearance that the permit is widely opposed by a consortium of groups. I wouldn't be surprised that some of those "groups" are primarily one or two disaffected individuals.
Pisses me off when environmental groups try to take a "scorched earth" approach to all mining projects, regardless of whether an individual project really does result in potential environmental harm. Don't get me wrong … I believe in protecting the environment, but I loathe those who abuse the "protect the environment" banner. I certainly won't donate to the Sierra Club anymore given that the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club is listed as one of the appeal petitioners.
Getting off my soap box now.
Planned for bad news, and it happened.
New appeal, but not by Earthworks (or at least they didn't join in with) but by the Dragoon Conservation Alliance, Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and Patagonia Area Resource Alliance who filed the appeal yesterday.
Link below to their appeal -- rehash of comments they raised during the public comment period.
https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.nsf/Filings%20By%20Appeal%20Number/1468910D51128AD0852582D60042127C?OpenDocument
Debt financing doubles between 2016 and 2017, per Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC). Equity financing has essentially flattened, and seeing more debt financing which may be a major shift for financing of non-revenue generating mining projects.
http://www.mining.com/debt-financing-doubles/
PDAC's State of Mineral Finance 2018:
http://www.pdac.ca/docs/default-source/priorities/access-to-capital/state-of-mineral-finance-2018--gaining-momentum.pdf?sfvrsn=61858298_0
Article: Canada's Top 10 base metal juniors. Based on a current USD market cap of about $164 million, I don't know why Excelsior Mining didn't make number 10 on the list (number 10 on the article's list is Filo Mining, with a market cap of $153 million).
http://www.northernminer.com/news/canadas-top-10-base-metal-juniors/1003797879/
In the 2017 Fraser Institute survey, Arizona was 9th best jurisdiction in the world for Investment Attractiveness Investment Index. Drop from 7th in 2016 to 9th in 2017, just behind Chile.
Link below to 2017 survey -- see Fig. 3 for full list by descending order.
http://www.mining.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/fraser-institute-survey-of-mining-companies-2017.pdf
OT article: Canada scaring mining investors with long, unclear permit processes (Ontario, BC, and Quebec), per Fraser Institute's latest mining survey. Link below to article:
http://www.mining.com/canada-scaring-mining-investors-with-long-unclear-permit-processes/
Minor regulatory matter - renewal of the state air quality permit ongoing. This is a permit that has already been issued to Excelsior Mining for the continued operation of the SX/EW plant, and it's come up for renewal. Public comment period on the renewal air permit ends on August 16th. Link below to ADEQ status:
http://www.azdeq.gov/node/5146
Hi Jinxed. I'm just assuming the worst case, so that if the worst case scenario doesn't come to pass, then the elation from good news (no appeal) is that much higher. :)
After my "research" on Earthworks' overall agenda and scope of projects they're trying to battle, the Gunnison project is inconsequential -- in short, why waste their time trying to appeal the permit for an environmentally benign mining project when there are so many other environmentally intrusive mining, oil/gas, etc. projects that they lambaste on their Twitter account? Plus, they must be in some sort of victory celebratory mood after EPA Pruitt's step down and thus far successful prevention of some proposed legislation that would have gutted environmental laws.
Reasons for recent copper price decline: Aside from the trade war rhetoric by Trump, a Chinese investor apparently has been unwinding a sizeable (billion dollars) bet on copper (probably because of the trade war spat). Link to July 9th article from Financial Times below.
https://www.ft.com/content/fe5f29d0-8367-11e8-a29d-73e3d454535d
You probably can tell from my frequent posts this evening that tonight is my "mining" research night, lol. Sorry about the clogging of the blog board.
For what it's worth, the Fraser Institute, in its 2016 survey rankings of the most attractive jurisdictions for mining investment, ranked Arizona 7th best in the world (the survey includes provinces, states, countries). Kudos to Arizona. (Saskatchewan was tops)
Link to survey summary below:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/annual-survey-of-mining-companies-2016
For those interested in reading what section 343 of the House version of the NDAA said (but was not included in the final House/Senate conference committee version), below is the text of that provision. Again, it was NOT included in the Conferee's version of the NDAA FY 2019:
"SEC. 343. Sense of Congress regarding critical minerals.
It is the sense of Congress that the final composition of the critical minerals list, as ordered by Executive Order No. 13817, should include aggregates, copper, molybendum, gold, zinc, nickel, lead, silver, and certain fertilizer compounds in addition to the 35 minerals included in the draft list, as published on February 16, 2018, for public comment."
YouTube video by Sprott Resource Holdings (SRHI) CEO, done in May 2018.
Talks about macro-copper outlook, and then a pitch for SRHI's MTV copper project in Chile. Points out the near term impact on copper prices/supply hinging on BHP labor negotiations at Escondida.
Talks a little about Rick Rule's thoughts (Rule loves Chile as a mining jurisdiction), too. Interesting to hear SRHI's enthusiasm for a copper project with "cash cost" of $2.24 USD/pound (compare to Excelsior Mining's all-in-cost of $1.23/lb).
Monocle
That's what I think has happened (either some group asked her to withdraw and join them, or she has caught wind of a group (e.g., Earthworks) who will file a permit appeal before the August 1st deadline and decided to simplify the process by joining them). Keeping my fingers crossed for the next week hoping I'm wrong.
Link to EPA Environmental Appeals Board for Excelsior Mining UIC permit appeal web page. Can't remember if I've posted it yet, but it should provide you current status on if/when another appeal is filed.
https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.nsf/f22b4b245fab46c6852570e6004df1bd/81a928bed8010fb5852582c60072090a!OpenDocument
New Caesars Report on Excelsior Mining. Bullish case presented.
https://caesarsreport.com/freereports/CaesarsReport_2018-07-23.pdf
Rule
Agree that if there is a "serious" appeal, it'll be filed on July 30, 31, or August 1, since the objective of an organized group (e.g., Earthworks) is to delay the project. I actually think the likelihood of such an appeal is already baked into the current share price (it may dip a little, but it won't be that long before folks start to accumulate shares at those dipped prices).
Earthworks (and possibly Sierra Club, if they decide to join in any potential permit appeal) face a dilemma on whether to appeal the permit. If they do, then they show that they are simply opposed to mining, in any form, period -- in short, an absolutist organization, without regard to whether a mining project is relatively environmentally benign (whether by its mining location or its type or scope of operations). I don't think Earthworks wants to brand itself as an inflexible pro-environmental organization, which it would if it filed a formal appeal to EPA Region 9's final UIC permit to Excelsior Mining.
Conversely, Earthworks (and possibly the Sierra Club), which are more national non-profit groups, may want to file an appeal due to the nearly unprecedented nature of Excelsior's ISR copper recovery approach -- fear of allowing a potentially national precedent to be set that might be cited or relied upon by other future copper or other mineral mining projects that want to obtain an UIC permit for an ISR methodology. The thought is that by stopping Excelsior Mining from getting its UIC permit, it would discourage other future potential mining projects that might want to give ISR a try (assuming such an approach would be feasible for their projects).
Personally, I'll be interested in seeing how Earthworks deals with the above dilemma as it relates to the permit appeal process. I think environmental conservation groups, in general, serve a good cause and often warrant citizen support to stop the bad actors. But, trying to stop an environmentally benign mining project such as the Gunnison mining operations would indicate to me that they harbor extreme, non-partnering ideology rather than really trying to serve the public good. I'd be severely disappointed if Earthworks and/or Sierra Club join in a permit appeal.
I can more readily understand if Amerind or the Gila Indian tribe decide to appeal, since their interests are more local and project-specific (even if, in my opinion, their reasons are unwarranted).
If the Gila Indian tribe appeal, that will be very disconcerting. Based on my past experience, anytime an Indian tribe voices concerns or joins in an appeal, the federal agencies involved will work with them with kid gloves -- the feds have to deal with Indian tribes on a sovereign-to-sovereign negotiating basis. Not criticizing that, but it's a reality that Native American tribes receive special consideration when they express concerns under existing laws and Presidential executive orders.
A little OT. Thieves stealing copper from moving trains in Chile. Reminds me of the theft of oil from pipeline in Nigeria. Part of the risk of obtaining natural resources from some regions.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-13/copper-trains-ransacked-by-moles-in-full-moon-desert-heists