November 15th 2008

Every few weeks for the past couple of years Kennecott has served up a dose of pablum to the general public, letting us know how much they care and what a good job they are doing as they prepare a prosperous future for the local economy.

It is perhaps a sign of the times that nobody seems to mind when the facts are bent a bit – except for a few spirits living and crying out there in the wilderness – just as few folks objected strongly enough when we were talked into going to war and spending our way into bankruptcy. The “dumbing down” process has worked like a charm.

But people may be coming to their senses, and I, an innocent bystander, semi-retired, with sixty-odd years of mining experience, here and abroad, am led to shed some light on the Kennecott Eagle project and the propaganda to which we have been exposed.

In April 2006 I agreed to help the National Wildlife Federation to review the Kennecott application for a permit to mine – with a reservation that I would help with technical matters but wanted no part of politicking. I am not against mining; I believe that there are good orebodies on and around the Yellow Dog Plains; I believe that they should be mined – but, if they are to be mined then let it be done responsibly and not necessarily for instant gratification. Leave some resources in the ground for our children. They are, after all, worth more than money in the bank.

I have studied the application and related documents almost full-time since April 2006 (without pay after the first year) because I wanted to see the job done right. After a couple of weeks I had seen so many errors and omissions in the application that I recommended, verbally and in writing, that the document be “Returned to sender, collect, as inadequate”. I added that if a student had handed it to me I would have told him to take it home and do a better job, or flunk. Period! The application itself was not a responsible document. Further study only made it look worse. I have not changed my mind.

Later I learned that David Sainsbury, a respected consultant hired by the DEQ to review the mining aspects of the application, had expressed a similar opinion, stating, more discretely, that the methodology of the study and design work on which the application was founded was “Not considered to be defensible” – which my dictionary tells me means that it can not be supported by fact. No good. So his reports were suppressed. Following a protest the DEQ sponsored an internal “investigation” and mysteriously found that “No wrong had been done”. However, since they did not address his concerns but decided to ignore them – they are in fact still suppressed. The wrong has been done.

Further support came from the other world-renowned mining consultant hired by the DEQ, Wilson Blake. In answer to questions from Bruce Wallace, attorney, he told us, p.857 of transcript: I was probably the first to apply finite element analysis to mine design. After a few years I dropped it. On pages 861, 864 and 878 he used the “I don’t do” words, summing up on p878 thus: “I – as I say, I don’t do RMR’s (a building block for Kennecott design). I don’t do scale spans. I don’t do CP (crown pillar) analyses. I don’t do numerical modeling anymore.” In essence he prefers to go and take a look at situations …

Thus both of their hired mining experts decried the Kennecott approach to mine design – not defensible – should be returned to sender.

A very real concern is that nobody has made an independent evaluation of the application. Nobody but Kennecott had access to all or most of the original data. All were fed data which had already been interpreted and, in some cases, doctored, by Kennecott. Not one was independent, thus all are suspect and of no value.

Please be aware that the basic assumptions on which all of the analyses and designs were based are not valid, therefore the conclusions and recommendations are likewise not valid. Period! There’s nothing to quibble about. Throw it out!

Be aware too that nobody can give a reliable assessment of potential stability or instability of the mine, and the crown pillar in particular, without knowing the state of stress in the rocks there – and nobody does know the state of stress. Calculated safety factors and probabilities of failure are therefore worthless. They are actually worse than worthless because they offer a false sense of security to the unwary or uninformed.

These very basic concerns were made known to Kennecott and to Rio Tinto; to the MDNR and DEQ and to the courts, and to all “experts” involved in the project – but without exception they have been, to date, blithely ignored and the project has been pushed as if all was satisfactory.

I must presume that nobody else has applied enough time and effort to evaluate the application properly, responsibly, and can only conclude that those in authority and/or advocating permission to mine as planned do not know what they are talking about, or were misled and are mistaken, or are practicing deception to ensure and expedite permits, which is illegal and merits time in jail.

For me the matter was brought to a head by a recent newspaper headline that a judge had “Case dismissed against the Eagle project”. That, of course, was devious wording since it implies that the project could now go ahead. The decision was questionable too because Kennecott’s plan would result in air, ground and water pollution greater than the required standards. Results will be cumulative, and worse, if the size and life expectancy of the mine are increased.

Remember that this discussion pertains to the mine as planned in the Feb 2006 application – on which the permits were to be adjudged. Any changes will have to be reviewed before action is taken.

To save time and space I will now jump ahead to the last paragraph in that article (in both Mining Gazette and Mining Journal, mid-November 2008) in which the spokesman for Kennecott regurgitates his pablum.

I quote:

“KENNECOTT HAS ALWAYS BEEN COMMITTED TO BUILDING THIS MINE THE RIGHT WAY, USING THE BEST DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND PRACTICES AVAILABLE FOR ENSURING THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE EAGLE WILL BE LOCATED”, SAID JON CHERRY, EAGLE PROJECT GENERAL MANAGER.

Absolutely wrong on all counts.

We can, if necessary, repudiate the statement – itself a blatant deception – by documenting the shortcomings in the application – error by error, omission by omission, deception by deception. We have already done that for the authorities. It remains to be seen how they will handle the situation. It boils down to integrity.

Jack Parker
South Range MI 49963