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.
From post by Goldfinger at CEO.CA site -- copper @ $3.20/lb today.
http://cdn.ceo.ca.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/1dhdjmj-Copper_Hourly_6.5.2018.png
Article: "Copper goes to sleep, but not for long" by Andrew Hecht. I rather like the explanations provided by Hecht regarding technical trends, LME inventory stock manipulation to affect spot pricing, etc.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4177955-copper-goes-sleep-long?isDirectRoadblock=false
Very interesting article. Thanks for the link.
Reach out to EPA Region 9.
If you're interested in contacting EPA Region 9 to ask about the status of the UIC permitting action, you can do so at the online "contact us" website for EPA Region 9: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/forms/contact-epa-pacific-southwest-region-9
For reference, the EPA draft permit was publicly noticed on October 25, 2017. A public hearing was held on Feb 27, 2018.
For what seems to be an environmentally safe or benign project for copper mining, it seems to be taking EPA too darn long and EPA's delay is preventing economic infusion into the local community as well as job creation.
My recommendation is that you ask for status on EPA's issuance of the final permit and the reason for the undue delay. Add any other "superlatives" you may want to express to EPA for the delay, lol.
Nice ring? How about nice Ka-ching?
Poster (@goldfinger) on CEO.CA message board posted that RBC analyst predicting copper price at $3.75/lb in 2021. Dovetails nicely with Excelsior's Phase II or Phase III expansion aspirations, assuming their ISR extraction rates are validated in Phase I operations. https://ceo.ca/min
Nick
Super congrats on the new baby! Is it your first one?
I think EPA will propose a final permit before June 30th. Excelsior Mining is just conservatively providing an estimate (by end Q2). As you indicated, the timing of the permit is now in EPA's control, not Excelsior's.
I'm going to make a wild ass guess that we'll see the EPA public notice of the proposed final permit on May 23. Might as well make a game out of it. Any other guesses on the exact date?
My hope is that Excelsior Mining already has conditional financing arranged (conditioned on a final permit, after expiration of the 30-day challenge period, hopefully with no appeal to the EPA Appeals Board). So, if my guess is right, then the permit will be final final 30 days after May 23, which would be June 22, assuming no challenges by Sierra Club, et al., to the proposed final permit.
Share price dips down to $1.08 to 1.09 range, I place a buy order in (I did today, but no luck).
I need EXMGF to pop, given my pain with holding CELG. :)
CFO Distler departing. Former CFO Valente acting as interim CFO, pending hire of new CFO. Excelsior Mining CEO had mentioned not too long ago that there would be some transition/personnel changes as they go from development to construction phase, so no big surprise. Not sure on whether there will be other management/personnel changes.
http://www.excelsiormining.com/index.php/news/news-2018/541-excelsior-provides-corporate-update
Not sure, Suerte. Could just be traders who want to cash in gains before the "news", for fear of a potential wave of sell on the news. I bought 20,000 more today on the dips.
Good EPA website to monitor for public notice of permit issuance.
This is the EPA Pacific Southwest website for public notice press releases (includes EPA actions in Arizona):
https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/public-notices-meetings-and-events-pacific-southwest
Nothing yet, but hopefully soon.
Excelsior Mining has highest projected IRR of any new mine coming into development, per RBC copper report. Courtesy of Walter Moonen @ HuntingGrowth on Twitter. See chart at link below:
New @RBC #Copper Report - @ExcelsiorMining the #highest IRR of any new #Coppermine coming in development!! $MIN.TO $EXMGF @WoodMackenzie pic.twitter.com/zgf33Og3a0
— Walter Moonen 🔋☢️💰Investor (@HuntingGrowth) May 7, 2018
Hi TTJ
I think the initial question regarding the effect of a challenge (to the EPA Environmental Appeals Board, or EAB) to an EPA-proposed final UIC permit can be answered by 40 CFR 124.16 ("Stays of contested permit conditions"). Link to that provision: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title40-vol23/pdf/CFR-2012-title40-vol23-sec124-16.pdf
In short, since this would be a new UIC permit for a new operation, I believe all of the permit conditions would be stayed pending resolution with the EAB, assuming EAB agrees to even hear the challenge. Note that the EAB can deny review of the petition/challenge, based on the burden that the petitioner/challenger must initially convince the EAB that EPA Region IX's decision to issue the permit was based on a "clearly erroneous" finding of fact or legal conclusion or that the issue concerns an exercise of EPA discretion or an important policy consideration that the EAB in its discretion should review.
fyi - link to EAB's Practice Manual: https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.nsf/8f612ee7fc725edd852570760071cb8e/889f7aab01cf481c85257afd0054d515/$FILE/Practice%20Manual%20August%202013.pdf
If the EAB hears the case, and supports EPA Region IX's permit decision, then, yes, the petitioners can seek judicial review of the EAB's decision under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in Federal District Court using the arbitrary, capricious, or abuse of discretion standard. The courts are supposed to accord EPA substantial deference on issues relating to interpretation of EPA regulations and policy.
In my opinion, the potential petitioners (e.g., Dragoon Conservation Alliance, Earthworks, Amerind Foundation, Sierra Club, Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, Patagonia Area Resource Alliance, and the Center for Biological Diversity) who might challenge Excelsior Mining's UIC permit would have a significant uphill battle that would be costly. Of those, I imagine Sierra Club would be the most daunting, since they have legal counsel who likely provide pro bono work, and then seek recovery of attorney fees and court costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). I'm not sure if a successful challenge to the issuance of a UIC permit would qualify under EAJA for recovery of attorney fees if they happened to substantially prevail in litigation. In short, it would cost them time and money to mount a legal challenge.
Given the fairly unique facts of a relatively environmentally benign location and type of operation without any "real" threat to drinking water supply or potential injury to sensitive biota, those potential petitioners would have to have serious reservations about undertaking a costly, likely losing effort to stop the issuance of the permit. The best they could hope for is to bring Excelsior to the negotiating table to agree to some minor modification of the permit (e.g., agreeing to install one or two additional down-gradient monitoring wells) and proclaim that as some sort of "victory" or success to the local constituents.
Sorry for the rambling nature of the discussion above, but those are my thoughts.
Excelsior's going to get the permit, they're going to get the necessary financing for Stage I, they're going to construct, and the next BIG issue is whether the amounts of copper they extract are close or exceed their assumed extraction rate enough to go to Phase II.
Fantastic!
Just to piggyback on some upbeat prognostications about copper in general -- the following from CFRA's March 2018 Industry Survey on Metals & Mining about copper supply/demand:
"Copper should be one of the top performing commodities for the second year in a row. CFRA
expects copper fundamentals to enter a long period of structural deficits starting in 2018, with
strong demand continuing from global construction and infrastructure and a lack of sufficient
supply to keep up with demand. We also note a strong tailwind emerging, as higher demand from a
shift to electric vehicles (EVs) and the required charging infrastructure. EVs consume 3 to 4 times
as much copper as internal combustion cars. In CFRA’s view, a higher copper price is needed to
balance markets, as the current supply outlook is unlikely to keep up with demand growth."
Excelsior Mining's timing is perfect. Greenstone must be sitting there with a Cheshire cat grin.
Thanks much, PG. Out of curiosity, did you see/meet any foreign investors (e.g., Chinese) during the site visit?
Have you heard any more from JJ or Excelsior mgt on the status of their amended Arizona aquifer permit? (Excelsior sought the recent amendment to clarify that Excelsior is a "bona fide prospective purchaser" with no liability under the Brownfields laws for any potential past contamination at the Johnson Mine camp property). I imagine such an amended state permit would help assuage potential investors' concerns for capital fund raising purposes.
Again, many thanks!
R
Another recent Tweet. StockTube video of interview with Tim Simpkin, Greenstone Resources. As expected, very bullish on Excelsior Mining, its management team, and its future.
$MIN.TO $EXMGF ''I don't use these words lightly .. but $MIN.TO $EXMGF have a truly world class management team that cover all aspects from the permitting, the hydrology, the production, the construction..." #greenstone #longterm https://t.co/yGLLCN30mn https://t.co/hbsO8Xynuu
— Gold Stock Trades (@goldstocktrades) April 24, 2018
Hi Trofee
I didn't go to the site. I found that Twitter link from Todd, so thought I'd post it here. Someone apparently impressed with the site and proposed buildout/progress plan by mgt. That's my guess for the spike in volume and share price.
I have to thank the NIOBF board, since that is where I saw mention of Excelsior Mining. When I saw the IRR was 40%, based on $2.75/lb copper, I started buying.
No position in NIOBF, but I often go to the board and read the posts.
Good luck on your positions.
R
Site tour with 40+ investors. Photos.
Excellent site tour at the Gunnison Copper Project & Johnson Camp. 40 plus investors spent the day learning about the In-Situ Recovery process, and the SX-EW #Copper Cathode production process pic.twitter.com/yruXRTbaMr
— Excelsior Mining Corp. (@ExcelsiorMining) April 23, 2018
Eric Coffin apparently spoke to EXMGF management about timing for the final EPA permit -- early to mid-May is expected timeframe. https://ceo.ca/@hra-coffin?0f7fd70ee8cb
Patience shall be rewarded.
Thanks, RW.
No, the original permit is still good. But, the amended provisions, which would benefit Excelsior Mining, contained in the permit amendment would not be effective until after the end of the 30 day public notice/comment period and ADEQ's decision to issue the amended permit. If ADEQ decided not to include the amended permit, the original APP still stands.
I wasn't sure what the purpose of the amendment was, until I talked with JJ Jennex this afternoon. Nice fellow.
Regarding the EPA UIC permit, he said EPA informed him at the public hearing (that was Feb 27th) that it would likely be acted upon (made final) in 6 to 8 weeks. So maybe sometime in late April or early May?
I've been buying below a dollar (USD) per share, figuring some shareholders would sell theirs to try to invest in other stock that were getting beaten up during the recent stock market sell off. Seems other buyers are doing the same.
Was nice to see EXMGF hold pretty steady when the market was tanking the last two weeks. Wish I could say the same for the other stock shares I own.
Was hoping to buy some TECK if it dipped down to $20-22 range. No such luck. Also watching VALE to catch it in the mid-11 range if it drops that low.
Picked up a lot of GLO and GLQ (nice dividend-paying closed end mutual fund shares you can trade) run by Clough. Pay dividends monthly, totaling about 9 to 10% annual return in dividends, and each share discounted at about 90% of NAV.
Also, bought a lot of biotech/pharma shares during that sector's slump -- CELG, TGTX, and SHPG (SHPG was a fortuitous buy, bought it just before news came out about Takeda wanting to acquire SHPG, so made a quick nice profit on share price spike - sold my SHPG this morning).
Ja, danke.
See explanation for APP permit amendment.
Clarification on the APP amendment. $EXMGF asked for it to show no $EXMGF liability for tailings/leftovers from previous Johnson Camp owners per its Johnson Camp purchase/sale agreement. In short, the proposed amendment is good for $EXMGF. No likely appeal of the permit mod.
— Helotian (@darter666) March 29, 2018
fyi - see http://www.azdeq.gov/node/4688. Trying to get more info from JJ Jennex on this.
Thanks for the article. I think there was an editing error (about global copper supply likely outstripping future demand) in the article. See extract below - first sentence doesn't make sense in context of remaining portion of the article.
"They both agreed global copper supply is likely to outstrip future demand, as well.
"The rise is on the demand side, not on the supply side," Adkerson said. "There's not going to be any huge, I feel confident saying, huge major upside surprises on copper supply."
Friedland said five or six tier-one copper mines would have to come online to adequately meet future demand."
Weird buying pattern for a major portion of the day. I had a carryover from yesterday 3100 share buy limit order @ .991 (USD), and I'd get mostly small partial fills (100 shares at a time, with about two to five minute intervals between the fills). After that finished, I placed another 5000 share buy limit order @ .981, and it'd fill the same way.
Yeh, I agree with you that Excelsior is undervalued and a great investing opportunity.
Keep in mind that even though there is an estimated 5 billion pounds of copper on the site, Excelsior Mining expects to only recover about 2.1 billion pounds (still a wowser amount).
Lock down that permit, get the first phase financing (hopefully most by debt, and not equity raise), demonstrate copper recovery rates that Excelsior estimated would occur with the in situ recovery approach, and hopefully copper prices don't slide. We be kicking arse then.
GLTU
Recent interview of CEO Twyerould.
Excellent interview with Excelsior Mining CEO - Stephan Twyerould $MIN.T $EXMGF https://t.co/tNVITPgXrx
— Shawn Westcott 🦮 (@VancityShawn) March 14, 2018
In case you want to see the last 25 trades today (starting at about 3:40 pm), use link below:
https://web.tmxmoney.com/quote.php?qm_symbol=min
Somebody wanted out in a hurry and sold at very cheap price, imho.
Hi Masslanding
I think there are some contingencies inherent in the issuance of the permit. First, EPA will have to decide on whether to require more monitoring wells and, if so, where, if EPA wants to satisfy some of the commenters' requests. There will be some back and forth discussions with Excelsior (and perhaps the commenters), if EPA wants to at least partially address the commenters' concerns.
If EPA wants to tell the commenters "too bad, too sad" and issue the permit as proposed as the draft, then there will be the 30-day period (after EPA Region IX announces its permitting decision) before the permit goes final. During that 30-day "wait" period, the commenters will have to decide whether they'll request a hearing before the EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). If they file an appeal, the appeal hearing will take time to schedule and convene.
So, best case likely scenario, EPA Region IX announces in April that it will issue the draft permit as is as the final. Then you have the 30-day wait period. That bumps you into May before the permit goes final, and that assumes the commenter coalition doesn't seek a hearing before the EAB.
Worst case scenario - EPA Region IX drags out its decision until June and proposes a final permit "as is" or in some modified form, and the commenters decide to appeal to the EAB, and the EAB sides with the commenters. That could drag out into the fall.
Hopefully it won't get to the worst case scenario and EPA, Excelsior, and the commenters resolve the latter's concerns with a quick fix (couple of down gradient groundwater monitoring wells, or increase in financial assurance/bond for post-closure obligations).
I'm long Excelsior, and intend to buy more, in case someone is wondering about my position. Really torques me off that the commenters are making such a ruckus on what is an environmentally-friendly approach to mining in such a benign environment. One wonders if they're trying to extort Excelsior into paying for other environmental mitigation projects and making donations to pay for some of their agenda items at other locations.
Note that EPA indicated it would likely render its permit decision in the "summer". Humbug.
Some news coverage of the public hearing:
http://www.myheraldreview.com/news/a-community-at-odds/article_230055be-1d08-11e8-b52a-fb24bfb173a9.html
I posted a link in my prior post on the Feb 20th comments. Those were supplemental comments from the coalition. Link below to their initial January 4th, 2018 comments to EPA:
http://www.azminingreform.org/sites/default/files/docs/Coalition_comments_Excelsior_UIC.pdf
Feb 20th comments from a coalition of various interest groups on the EPA proposed UIC permit to Excelsior.
http://www.azminingreform.org/sites/default/files/docs/Supplemental_UIC_Coalition_Comments.pdf
Summary of comments:
1. Commenters object to the process EPA used to determine the size and scope of Area of Review (AoR) which essentially defines the area where the permit-related requirements apply. Contend EPA should have used the rulemaking process rather than negotiations with the Excelsior for a precedent-setting UIC permit. Also contend the AoR is too small -- should be larger area, so that monitoring wells further away from the hydraulic zone for the in situ injections/extractions can detect if injectate is "escaping" through other hydraulic routes.
2. EPA didn't require Excelsior to complete a cumulative impacts analysis (incremental impacts from Excelsior's project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future impacts from other activities within the regional area on various media - air, water, cultural, etc.). Normally required for environmental impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and usually satisfied by a functionally equivalent process under the Safe Drinking Water Act permitting process. Commenters contend EPA didn't even require the functionally equivalent process during the UIC permitting process for Excelsior.
3. Commenters want water quality parameters for level 1 and 2 assessments spelled out in the permit before issuance, rather than allowing those parameters to be determined after permit issuance. The level 1 assessment consists of a lot of info to determine whether injection activities have caused endangerment to human health or the environment. Site assessments vary in scope and level of detail. For UIC wells, EPA generally subdivides site assessments into 3 levels. Each level requires obtaining information deemed necessary based on the data gathered at the level preceding it. E.g., if sampling results under the 1st level site assessment show the injectate to be classified as hazardous, then the site will move up to level 2 site assessment. Commenters want the permit to included an expanded list of radioactive chemicals and elements to be sampled in monitoring wells on a frequent basis.
4. Inadequate cultural resource review process -- need to consult with Native American tribes in the region and conduct cultural and archeological surveys.
5. Failure by EPA to explain how the bond required by the draft permit was calculated and whether it is sufficient to protect the public from any liability for cleanup if the bond is insufficient.
The commenters include representatives from the following organizations:
Dragoon Conservation Alliance, Earthworks, Amerind Foundation, Sierra Club, Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, Patagonia Area Resource Alliance, and the Center for Biological Diversity.
I'd say the probability of an appeal to the EPA Environmental Appeals Board if EPA doesn't address the above comments to the commenters' satisfaction is more likely, which means more time until the final permit is issued. There may be some side discussions/negotiations between the above and Excelsior. We'll have to wait for Excelsior to issue a PR and see what it says.
Expect some organized opposition by the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, headed by Roger Featherstone, a chronic conservationist who has opposed other mining endeavors in Arizona. See their website invite to the public to oppose Excelsior's permit:
http://www.azminingreform.org/content/attend-public-meeting-stop-proposed-gunnison-copper-mine
If you want to see more of Roger Featherstone's past efforts, just do a Google search and search on YouTube.
As for me, I'm not worried. Featherstone is wasting his time opposing Excelsior's project as it is relatively environmentally benign.
Comments will be provided to EPA Region IX, and they'll have to prepare a "response to comments" as part of their final permit decision, which I expect will be a positive decision for Excelsior.
From 7 pm to 9 pm on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at the Dragoon Women’s Club, 1871 North Johnson Road in Dragoon, Arizona.
Macro look for commodities, including copper:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/inflation-s-come-and-that-s-good-for-commodities-jpmorgan-says
Based on 40 CFR 124.15 below, after the public hearing is completed and EPA Region IX considers comments provided during the public hearing, EPA will issue its final decision (doesn't specify when that will occur after the Feb. 27, 2018 public hearing). EPA's final permit decision will become effective 30 days after notice of EPA's final permit decision is published (or upon another effective date specified in EPA's final permit decision), unless a public commenter on the permit wants to challenge the EPA Region IX's permit decision in an EPA environmental appeals board (EAB) (administrative hearing before an administrative law judge). 40 CFR 124.19 (extract below) spells out the appeals process.
Bottom line: Optimally, EPA Region IX issues a final permit decision (favorable to Excelsior) about a week or two after the public hearing. (That's very optimistic, since EPA would produce some sort of transcript of the public hearing and response paper to any comments received, and that might take a month or so). Realistically, end of March 2018 before EPA issues a final permit decision. Then have the 30-day "cool off" period in which a public commenter can decide whether to appeal to the EAB. If no appeal, then likely at the end of April 2018 before the permit is "final" and non-challengeable.
§124.10 Public notice of permit actions and public comment period.
* * * Extract - 124.10(b)(1) and (2) * * *
(b) Timing (applicable to State programs, see §§123.25 (NPDES), 145.11 (UIC), 233.26 (404, and 271.14 (RCRA)).
(1) Public notice of the preparation of a draft permit (including a notice of intent to deny a permit application) required under paragraph (a) of this section shall allow at least 30 days for public comment. For RCRA permits only, public notice shall allow at least 45 days for public comment. For EPA-issued permits, if the Regional Administrator determines under 40 CFR part 6, subpart F that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) shall be prepared for an NPDES new source, public notice of the draft permit shall not be given until after a draft EIS is issued.
(2) Public notice of a public hearing shall be given at least 30 days before the hearing. (Public notice of the hearing may be given at the same time as public notice of the draft permit and the two notices may be combined.)
--------
§124.15 Issuance and effective date of permit.
(a) After the close of the public comment period under §124.10 on a draft permit, the Regional Administrator shall issue a final permit decision (or a decision to deny a permit for the active life of a RCRA hazardous waste management facility or unit under §270.29). The Regional Administrator shall notify the applicant and each person who has submitted written comments or requested notice of the final permit decision. This notice shall include reference to the procedures for appealing a decision on a RCRA, UIC, PSD, or NPDES permit under §124.19 of this part. For the purposes of this section, a final permit decision means a final decision to issue, deny, modify, revoke and reissue, or terminate a permit.
(b) A final permit decision (or a decision to deny a permit for the active life of a RCRA hazardous waste management facility or unit under §270.29) shall become effective 30 days after the service of notice of the decision unless:
(1) A later effective date is specified in the decision; or
(2) Review is requested on the permit under §124.19.
(3) No comments requested a change in the draft permit, in which case the permit shall become effective immediately upon issuance.
[48 FR 14264, Apr. 1, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 9607, Mar. 7, 1989; 65 FR 30911, May 15, 2000]
----
§124.19 Appeal of RCRA, UIC, NPDES and PSD Permits.
(a) Petitioning for review of a permit decision. (1) Initiating an appeal. Appeal from a RCRA, UIC, NPDES, or PSD final permit decision issued under §124.15 of this part, or a decision to deny a permit for the active life of a RCRA hazardous waste management facility or unit under §270.29 of this chapter, is commenced by filing a petition for review with the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board within the time prescribed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(2) Who may file? Any person who filed comments on the draft permit or participated in a public hearing on the draft permit may file a petition for review as provided in this section. Additionally, any person who failed to file comments or failed to participate in the public hearing on the draft permit may petition for administrative review of any permit conditions set forth in the final permit decision, but only to the extent that those final permit conditions reflect changes from the proposed draft permit.
(3) Filing deadline. A petition for review must be filed with the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board within 30 days after the Regional Administrator serves notice of the issuance of a RCRA, UIC, NPDES, or PSD final permit decision under §124.15 or a decision to deny a permit for the active life of a RCRA hazardous waste management facility or unit under §270.29 of this chapter. A petition is filed when it is received by the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board at the address specified for the appropriate method of delivery as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section.
(4) Petition contents. (i) In addition to meeting the requirements in paragraph (d), a petition for review must identify the contested permit condition or other specific challenge to the permit decision and clearly set forth, with legal and factual support, petitioner's contentions for why the permit decision should be reviewed. The petition must demonstrate that each challenge to the permit decision is based on:
(A) A finding of fact or conclusion of law that is clearly erroneous, or
(B) An exercise of discretion or an important policy consideration that the Environmental Appeals Board should, in its discretion, review.
(ii) Petitioners must demonstrate, by providing specific citation or other appropriate reference to the administrative record (e.g., by including the document name and page number), that each issue being raised in the petition was raised during the public comment period (including any public hearing) to the extent required by §124.13. For each issue raised that was not raised previously, the petition must explain why such issues were not required to be raised during the public comment period as provided in §124.13. Additionally, if the petition raises an issue that the Regional Administrator addressed in the response to comments document issued pursuant to §124.17, then petitioner must provide a citation to the relevant comment and response and explain why the Regional Administrator's response to the comment was clearly erroneous or otherwise warrants review.
(b) Response(s) to a petition for review. (1) In a PSD or other new source permit appeal, the Regional Administrator must file a response to the petition for review, a certified index of the administrative record, and the relevant portions of the administrative record within 21 days after the service of the petition. The response brief must respond to arguments raised by the appellant, together with specific citation or other appropriate reference to the record (e.g., by including the document name and page number).
(2) In all other permit appeals under this section, the Regional Administrator must file a response to the petition, a certified index of the administrative record, and the relevant portions of the administrative record within 30 days after the service of a petition.
(c) Replies. (1) In PSD and other new source permit appeals, the Environmental Appeals Board will apply a presumption against the filing of a reply brief. By motion, petitioner may seek leave of the Environmental Appeals Board to file a reply to the response, which the Environmental Appeals Board, in its discretion, may grant. The motion must be filed simultaneously with the proposed reply within 10 days after service of the response. In its motion, petitioner must specify those arguments in the response to which petitioner seeks to reply and the reasons petitioner believes it is necessary to file a reply to those arguments. Petitioner may not raise new issues or arguments in the motion or in the reply.
(2) In all other permit appeals under this section, petitioner may file a reply within 15 days after service of the response. Petitioner may not raise new issues or arguments in the reply.
(d) Content and form of briefs. (1) Content requirements. All briefs filed under this section must contain, under appropriate headings:
(i) A table of contents, with page references;
(ii) A table of authorities with references to the pages of the brief where they are cited;
(iii) A table of attachments, if required under paragraph (d)(2) of this section; and
(iv) A statement of compliance with the word limitation.
(2) Attachments. Parts of the record to which the parties wish to direct the Environmental Appeals Board's attention may be appended to the brief submitted. If the brief includes attachments, a table must be included that provides the title of each appended document and assigns a label identifying where it may be found (e.g., Excerpts from the Response to Comments Document * * * Attachment 1).
(3) Length. Unless otherwise ordered by the Environmental Appeals Board, petitions and response briefs may not exceed 14,000 words, and all other briefs may not exceed 7,000 words. Filers may rely on the word-processing system used to determine the word count. In lieu of a word limitation, filers may comply with a 30-page limit for petitions and response briefs, or a 15-page limit for replies. Headings, footnotes, and quotations count toward the word limitation. The table of contents, table of authorities, table of attachments (if any), statement requesting oral argument (if any), statement of compliance with the word limitation, and any attachments do not count toward the word limitation. The Environmental Appeals Board may exclude any petition, response, or other brief that does not meet word limitations. Where a party can demonstrate a compelling and documented need to exceed such limitations, such party must seek advance leave of the Environmental Appeals Board to file a longer brief. Such requests are discouraged and will be granted only in unusual circumstances.
(e) Participation by amicus curiae. Any interested person may file an amicus brief in any appeal pending before the Environmental Appeals Board under this section. The deadline for filing such brief is 15 days after the filing of the response brief, except that amicus briefs in PSD or other new source permit appeals must be filed within 21 days after the filing of the petition. Amicus briefs must comply with all procedural requirements of this section.
(f) Motions. (1) In general. A request for an order or other relief must be made by written motion unless these rules prescribe another form.
(2) Contents of a motion. A motion must state with particularity the grounds for the motion, the relief sought, and the legal argument necessary to support the motion. In advance of filing a motion, parties must attempt to ascertain whether the other party(ies) concur(s) or object(s) to the motion and must indicate in the motion the attempt made and the response obtained.
(3) Response to motion. Any party may file a response to a motion. Responses must state with particularity the grounds for opposition and the legal argument necessary to support the motion. The response must be filed within 15 days after service of the motion unless the Environmental Appeals Board shortens or extends the time for response.
(4) Reply. Any reply to a response filed under paragraph (f)(3) of this section must be filed within 10 days after service of the response. A reply must not introduce any new issues or arguments and may respond only to matters presented in the response.
(5) Length. Unless otherwise ordered by the Environmental Appeals Board, motions and any responses or replies may not exceed 7000 words. Filers may rely on the word-processing system used to determine the word count. In lieu of a word limitation, filers may comply with a 15-page limit. Headings, footnotes, and quotations count toward the word or page-length limitation. The Environmental Appeals Board may exclude any motion that does not meet word limitations. Where a party can demonstrate a compelling and documented need to exceed such limitations, such party must seek advance leave of the Environmental Appeals Board. Such requests are discouraged and will be granted only in unusual circumstances.
(6) Disposition of a motion for a procedural order. The Environmental Appeals Board may act on a motion for a procedural order at any time without awaiting a response.
(g) Timing of motions for extension of time. Parties must file motions for extensions of time sufficiently in advance of the due date to allow other parties to have a reasonable opportunity to respond to the request for more time and to provide the Environmental Appeals Board with a reasonable opportunity to issue an order.
(h) Oral argument. The Environmental Appeals Board may hold oral argument on its own initiative or at its discretion in response to a request by one or more of the parties. To request oral argument, a party must include in its substantive brief a statement explaining why oral argument should be permitted. The Environmental Appeals Board will apply a presumption against oral argument in PSD or other new source permit appeals. The Environmental Appeals Board may, by order, establish additional procedures governing any oral argument before the Environmental Appeals Board.
(i) Filing and service requirements. Documents filed under this section, including the petition for review, must be filed with the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board. A document is filed when it is received by the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board at the address specified for the appropriate method of delivery as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section. Service of a document between parties to an appeal or by the Environmental Appeals Board on a party is complete upon mailing for U.S. mail or EPA internal mail, when placed in the custody of a reliable commercial delivery service, or upon transmission for facsimile or email.
(1) Caption and other filing requirements. Every document filed with the Environmental Appeals Board must specifically identify in the caption the permit applicant, the permitted facility, and the permit number. All documents that are filed must be signed by the person filing the documents or the representative of the person filing the documents. Each filing must also indicate the signer's name, address, and telephone number, as well as an email address, and facsimile number, if any.
(2) Method of filing. Unless otherwise permitted under these rules, documents must be filed either by using the Environmental Appeals Board's electronic filing system, by U.S. mail, or by hand delivery. In addition, a motion or a response to a motion may be submitted by facsimile if the submission contains no attachments. Upon filing a motion or response to a motion by facsimile, the sender must, within one business day, submit the original copy to the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board either electronically, by mail, or by hand-delivery. The Environmental Appeals Board may by order require filing by facsimile or the Board's electronic filing system, subject to any appropriate conditions and limitations.
(i) Electronic filing. Documents that are filed electronically must be submitted using the Environmental Appeals Board's electronic filing system, subject to any appropriate conditions and limitations imposed by order of the Environmental Appeals Board. All documents filed electronically must include the full name of the person filing below the signature line. Compliance with Environmental Appeals Board electronic filing requirements constitutes compliance with applicable signature requirements.
(ii) Filing by U.S. Mail. Documents that are sent by U.S. Postal Service (except by U.S. Express Mail) must be sent to the official mailing address of the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Appeals Board, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Code 1103M, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The original and two copies of each document must be filed. The person filing the documents must include a cover letter to the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board clearly identifying the documents that are being submitted, the name of the party on whose behalf the documents are being submitted, as well as the name of the person filing the documents, his or her address, telephone number and, if available, fax number and email address.
(iii) Filing by hand delivery. Documents delivered by hand or courier (including deliveries by U.S. Express Mail) must be delivered to the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Appeals Board, EPA East Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004. The original and two copies of each document must be filed. The person filing the documents must include a cover letter to the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board clearly identifying the documents being submitted, the name of the party on whose behalf the documents are being submitted, as well as the name of the person filing the documents, his or her address, telephone number and, if available, fax number and email address.
(3) Service—(i) Service information. The first document filed by any person shall contain the name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of an individual authorized to receive service relating to the proceeding. Parties shall promptly file any changes in this information with the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board, and serve copies on all parties to the proceeding. If a party fails to furnish such information and any changes thereto, service to the party's last known address shall satisfy the requirements of paragraph (i)(3) of this section.
(ii) Service requirements for parties. Petitioner must serve the petition for review on the Regional Administrator and the permit applicant (if the applicant is not the petitioner). Once an appeal is docketed, every document filed with the Environmental Appeals Board must be served on all other parties. Service must be by first class U.S. mail, by any reliable commercial delivery service, or, if agreed to by the parties, by facsimile or other electronic means, including but not necessarily limited to or email. A party who consents to service by facsimile or other electronic means must file an acknowledgement of its consent (identifying the type of electronic means agreed to and the electronic address to be used) with the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board. The Environmental Appeals Board may by order authorize or require service by facsimile, email, or other electronic means, subject to any appropriate conditions and limitations.
(iii) Service of rulings, orders, and decisions. The Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board must serve copies of rulings, orders, and decisions on all parties. Service may be made by U.S. mail (including by certified mail or return receipt requested, Overnight Express and Priority Mail), EPA's internal mail, any reliable commercial delivery service, or electronic means (including but not necessarily limited to facsimile and email).
(4) Proof of service. A certificate of service must be appended to each document filed stating the names of persons served, the date and manner of service, as well as the electronic, mailing, or hand delivery address, or facsimile number, as appropriate.
(j) Withdrawal of permit or portions of permit by Regional Administrator. The Regional Administrator, at any time prior to 30 days after the Regional Administrator files its response to the petition for review under paragraph (b) of this section, may, upon notification to the Environmental Appeals Board and any interested parties, withdraw the permit and prepare a new draft permit under §124.6 addressing the portions so withdrawn. The new draft permit must proceed through the same process of public comment and opportunity for a public hearing as would apply to any other draft permit subject to this part. Any portions of the permit that are not withdrawn and that are not stayed under §124.16(a) continue to apply. If the Environmental Appeals Board has held oral argument, the Regional Administrator may not unilaterally withdraw the permit, but instead must request that the Environmental Appeals Board grant a voluntary remand of the permit or any portion thereof.
(k) Petitioner request for dismissal of petition. Petitioner, by motion, may request to have the Environmental Appeals Board dismiss its appeal. The motion must briefly state the reason for its request.
(l) Final disposition and judicial review. (1) A petition to the Environmental Appeals Board under paragraph (a) of this section is, under 5 U.S.C. 704, a prerequisite to seeking judicial review of the final agency action.
(2) For purposes of judicial review under the appropriate Act, final agency action on a RCRA, UIC, NPDES, or PSD permit occurs when agency review procedures under this section are exhausted and the Regional Administrator subsequently issues a final permit decision under this paragraph. A final permit decision must be issued by the Regional Administrator:
(i) When the Environmental Appeals Board issues notice to the parties that the petition for review has been denied;
(ii) When the Environmental Appeals Board issues a decision on the merits of the appeal and the decision does not include a remand of the proceedings; or
(iii) Upon the completion of remand proceedings if the proceedings are remanded, unless the Environmental Appeals Board's remand order specifically provides that appeal of the remand decision will be required to exhaust administrative remedies.
(3) The Regional Administrator must promptly publish notice of any final agency action regarding a PSD permit in the Federal Register.
(m) Motions for reconsideration or clarification. Motions to reconsider or clarify any final disposition of the Environmental Appeals Board must be filed within 10 days after service of that order. Motions for reconsideration must set forth the matters claimed to have been erroneously decided and the nature of the alleged errors. Motions for clarification must set forth with specificity the portion of the decision for which clarification is being sought and the reason clarification is necessary. Motions for reconsideration or clarification under this provision must be directed to, and decided by, the Environmental Appeals Board. Motions for reconsideration or clarification directed to the Administrator, rather than the Environmental Appeals Board, will not be considered, unless such motion relates to a matter that the Environmental Appeals Board has referred to the Administrator pursuant to §124.2 and for which the Administrator has issued the final order. A motion for reconsideration or clarification does not stay the effective date of the final order unless the Environmental Appeals Board specifically so orders.
(n) Board authority. In exercising its duties and responsibilities under this part, the Environmental Appeals Board may do all acts and take all measures necessary for the efficient, fair, and impartial adjudication of issues arising in an appeal under this part including, but not limited to, imposing procedural sanctions against a party who, without adequate justification, fails or refuses to comply with this part or an order of the Environmental Appeals Board. Such sanctions may include drawing adverse inferences against a party, striking a party's pleadings or other submissions from the record, and denying any or all relief sought by the party in the proceeding. Additionally, for good cause, the Board may relax or suspend the filing requirements prescribed by these rules or Board order.
(o) General NPDES permits. (1) Persons affected by an NPDES general permit may not file a petition under this section or otherwise challenge the conditions of a general permit in further Agency proceedings. Instead, they may do either of the following:
(i) Challenge the general permit by filing an action in court; or
(ii) Apply for an individual NPDES permit under §122.21 as authorized in §122.28 of this chapter and may then petition the Environmental Appeals Board to review the individual permit as provided by this section.
(2) As provided in §122.28(b)(3) of this chapter, any interested person may also petition the Director to require an individual NPDES permit for any discharger eligible for authorization to discharge under an NPDES general permit.
(p) The Environmental Appeals Board also may decide on its own initiative to review any condition of any RCRA, UIC, NPDES, or PSD permit decision issued under this part for which review is available under paragraph (a) of this section. The Environmental Appeals Board must act under this paragraph within 30 days of the service date of notice of the Regional Administrator's action.
[78 FR 5285, Jan. 25, 2013, as amended at 82 FR 2236, Jan. 9, 2017]
Not good enough to start construction. Permit is still a draft version proposed by EPA to be approved, but pending a public hearing.
As for reasons why EPA Region IX is now issuing notice of a public hearing on its proposed decision to approve the UIC permit, below is what 40 CFR Part 124 (specifically, section 124.12) says:
§124.12 Public hearings.
(a) (Applicable to State programs, see §§123.25 (NPDES), 145.11 (UIC), 233.26 (404), and 271.14 (RCRA).) (1) The Director shall hold a public hearing whenever he or she finds, on the basis of requests, a significant degree of public interest in a draft permit(s);
(2) The Director may also hold a public hearing at his or her discretion, whenever, for instance, such a hearing might clarify one or more issues involved in the permit decision;
(3) For RCRA permits only, (i) the Director shall hold a public hearing whenever he or she receives written notice of opposition to a draft permit and a request for a hearing within 45 days of public notice under §124.10(b)(1); (ii) whenever possible the Director shall schedule a hearing under this section at a location convenient to the nearest population center to the proposed facility;
(4) Public notice of the hearing shall be given as specified in §124.10.
(b) Whenever a public hearing will be held and EPA is the permitting authority, the Regional Administrator shall designate a Presiding Officer for the hearing who shall be responsible for its scheduling and orderly conduct.
(c) Any person may submit oral or written statements and data concerning the draft permit. Reasonable limits may be set upon the time allowed for oral statements, and the submission of statements in writing may be required. The public comment period under §124.10 shall automatically be extended to the close of any public hearing under this section. The hearing officer may also extend the comment period by so stating at the hearing.
(d) A tape recording or written transcript of the hearing shall be made available to the public.
[48 FR 14264, Apr. 1, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 17718, Apr. 24, 1984; 50 FR 6941, Feb. 19, 1985; 54 FR 258, Jan. 4, 1989; 65 FR 30911, May 15, 2000]
The public notice issued by EPA Region IX didn't clarify which of the above reasons was the impetus for calling for a public hearing. It could be that there were some objecting comments submitted by the public. Wish Excelsior Mining would provide some explanation as to why EPA decided to hold the public hearing.
Uh, Landmark, isn't your SCY baby doing a somewhat similar approach (Kinkos)?
[url]http://www.goldseiten.de/artikel/361214--Scandium-International-Mining-Signs-Letter-of-Intent-with-AML-Technologies-to-Test-Scandium-Alloys-in-3D-Printing-Applications.html
OT: Tell NioCorp to not throw any bluish rocks away
Interesting article about the Yogo Gulch mines in Montana and presence of some of the highest quality blue sapphires -- right mixture of aluminum, oxygen, and titanium seems to be the key to the perfect blue tint.
[url]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/how-montana-gold-rushers-literally-threw-away-a-fortune-in-sapphires/ar-AAuCwBq?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp