Mt. Emmons prospecting permit set for hearing

New rules allow for more public comment

Is a proposed tunnel in Mt. Emmons the start of ramped-up mining activity or is it just a way to conduct further prospecting and gather more information?

A local environmental group thinks it obviously falls under the mining category. The company hoping to build the tunnel maintains it will be used for prospecting and gathering firsthand information.
An appeal of the state approval for a prospecting permit for the Mt. Emmons Moly Company (MEMCO) was filed on November 19 in Denver. High Country Citizens’ Alliance says the state’s Mined Land Reclamation Board will hear its case at its next meeting, scheduled for December 15.
HCCA’s appeal essentially contends that the prospecting permit issued by Colorado’s Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) is inappropriate since the prospecting of the mountain has been done. HCCA feels this permit, which will allow for a “drift” or mine tunnel in Mt. Emmons, is part of the actual mining phase and should be considered under the more tightly regulated development phase of the project.
DRMS issued a Notice of Intent to Conduct Prospecting on November 15. It had been looking at the application from the mining company since last January.
“This is definitely prospecting,” said MEMCO director of community relations Perry Anderson. “We are delineating the deposit. We’ve never made any secret that that’s our intention. We feel the division made an appropriate decision. We have always said that we need to gather our own data, given the scope of this project.”
The town of Crested Butte had written DRMS a letter asking that before authorizing the permit, the DRMS require that any mining company receive a watershed permit from the town before commencing. A letter from DRMS director Loretta Pineda to town attorney John Belkin said that while DRMS acknowledges the town’s regulating authority, “prospectors are subject to zoning and land use authority and regulation… DRMS will not enforce compliance with requirements of other federal, state or local agencies. Thus, DRMS cannot make its administration of a Prospecting Notice contingent on permits or licenses that might be required by such other agencies, such as the town.”
In its 13-page appeal, HCCA states that it has already been determined there is indeed a large deposit of high-quality molybdenum in Mt. Emmons. Moly is selling for about $16 a pound right now. More than 760 million pounds of moly is believed to be in the mountain and well over $150 million has already been spent on the project in an effort to delineate the ore body. So, HCCA makes the argument that building the proposed drift is actually “mining development” activity as opposed to “prospecting” activity.
The HCCA appeal states, “…Public statements and documents merely reiterate the fact that the operator has long demonstrated that they are well past the stage of activity ‘required to prove minerals are in existence in commercial quantities.’
“The evidence set forth herein demonstrates that the activities proposed by the Mt. Emmons Project are ‘development’ work that must be subject to a reclamation permit, not ‘prospecting’ that might be approved through a Notice of Intent,” the appeal continues.
According to HCCA executive director Dan Morse, the appeal also brings up two other major points. He says the mining company has indicated it will be utilizing the current Keystone Mine water treatment plant to treat more contaminated mine water from waste rock. Because of that, HCCA feels it is appropriate to make sure a significant bond is in place to cover the water plant in case it were to fail or stop operating. In fact the environmental organization wrote a separate letter to the Forest Service this week asking the agency if it had proper permits and bonding in place for the water plant since it is located on Forest Service land.
“Regardless of whether the Board determines the subject operations to be prospecting or development, the Board must require the company to post an adequate financial assurance—which includes all costs to operate and maintain the water treatment facilities,” the appeal states.
Morse said the third aspect of the appeal is based on compliance with the regulations of other agencies, particularly the town of Crested Butte’s watershed ordinance and Gunnison County’s Land Use Resolution. “We pointed out that it is part of their rules to not allow any work until all the proper permits have been received,” Morse said. “It doesn’t appear there has been any inclination on the part of the mining company to even begin seeking these permits.”
The appeal states, “HCCA requests that the Board overturn Division approval of the NOI and instruct the Division not to consider approval of the NOI until a demonstration of compliance with all applicable local and federal laws can be made.”
The HCCA appeal has been scheduled in Denver for December 15 in front of the Mined Land Reclamation Board.
Anderson reiterated that the mining company has always made it clear it wanted to gather its own data. “The 760 million pound figure is historical data,” he said. “Another company did the work. To develop a mine at a significant cost, we want our own data.
“Furthermore, that molybdenum deposit wasn’t fully delineated,” Anderson continued. “The ore deposit might be bigger. We don’t know for sure. We aren’t satisfied with the delineation of the ore body. We want to do our own studies and do our own drilling. We have always said we won’t rely on historical data. We want to gather our own information. It is prospecting. It is not mining.”
“The appeal of this decision falls under relatively new rules adopted earlier this year, and those new rules allow for public comment,” said Morse. “We believe these three major issues are reason enough for the MLRB to reconsider the DRMS decision.”
Anderson said while he himself probably wouldn’t be at the appeal hearing, he assumed MEMCO would be represented. He emphasized that the process of moving toward a new drift was in the early stages. “We hope to start driving the drift in 2011 but there is no date certain,” said Anderson.
As far as applying for a Crested Butte watershed permit and going through the county Land Use Resolution, Anderson said, “I know we’ll comply with all appropriate permits. There’s not been a lot of discussion on specifics yet. We are putting our ducks in a row. The DRMS permit was the first step and that’s where we are now—at the first step.”
The appeal has been scheduled for Wednesday, December 15 in front of the Mined Land Reclamation Board.