Freeport-McMoRan to permanently remove mining claims from Mount Emmons and transfer back to U.S. Forest Service Options

[Gene Kooper]

Published this evening in the online Denver Post.

Crested Butte celebrates as longest running mine battle in the West nears end

CRESTED BUTTE — This end-of-the-road village has spent nearly 40 years transforming itself from a mining town into a thriving tourist destination despite the threat of a huge molybdenum mine on the hill overlooking downtown.

But the final chapter in the longest running mine fight in the West may soon be written.

Freeport-McMoRan — the world’s largest moly producer and owner of the Climax Mine near Leadville and the soon-to-shutter Henderson Mine near Empire — has inked a preliminary deal to permanently remove mining claims from Mount Emmons and return about 9,000 acres to the Forest Service. It will also work with Crested Butte to continue treating tainted water flowing from a long-defunct mine on the mountain.

For decades, every time molybdenum prices peaked, locals raised money and filed lawsuits to fight a proposed 1,000-worker mine digging 25 million tons of high-grade moly from the belly of beloved Mount Emmons. The crusade was at times so pitched that residents pledged to lay down in the middle of Whiterock Avenue to block ore-hauling trucks.

From the article it appears that if the town of Crested Butte can raise $2,000,000 Freeport-McMoRan will give up nearly 9,000 acres of unpatented lode claims on Mt. Emmons. Sen. Bennet has agreed to sponsor a bill that the article implies will permanently remove the area covered by those claims from mineral entry. At least that is how I read the story. The townsfolk and environmentalists are hailing this proposed action as forever removing Mt. Emmons and its large moly deposit from ever being mined.

The article implies that the Gold King Mine disaster acted as a catalyst for Freeport-McMoRan's decision. The company will still operate a water treatment plant to treat acidic metal-laden water that discharges into Coal Creek.

[EMac]

EMac is just a nickname I picked up in MN years ago. People at work would take your first initial and last few letters to give you your new name. Eric McFarland resulted in EMac. Software is definitely not my forte...

The 2nd link explained the latest claims; I wasn't looking at locations compared to the monument, and see they say those claims are outside it.

I was trying to tie Newcastle/Viceroy/Castle Mountain Mining back to your comments around Crested Butte:

I'm guessing once the deal is done some Junior will make new claims there after buying the discovery proof from Freeport. Then it won't matter if they manage to pull off a mineral withdrawal or not.

I'm thinking Crested Butte is about to get a very expensive lesson in mining law. eating-popcorn-03.gif

I interpret this to be that someone will come in and file new claims in Crested Butte, after Freeport sells rights to the town and prior to the withdrawal of the lands for mineral exploration. Extrapolating that out to CA, one would think that 3rd parties filed a bunch of claims prior to the proclamation. I don't see that happened in CA, so I'm not sure how it applies to Crested Butte. Moreover, if Newcastle has no claims in the monument area as they say, then the withdrawal piece of this puzzle is a red herring.

I feel obtuse....what am I missing? This is an interesting topic, particularly in light that there are movements out there seeking to turn over federal, public land to the states. I'm not sure where I stand on that since I haven't done the analysis, but the idea is scary since I'm skeptical that it would benefit small-scale prospectors.

[Clay Diggins]

I interpret this to be that someone will come in and file new claims in Crested Butte, after Freeport sells rights to the town and prior to the withdrawal of the lands for mineral exploration. Extrapolating that out to CA, one would think that 3rd parties filed a bunch of claims prior to the proclamation. I don't see that happened in CA, so I'm not sure how it applies to Crested Butte. Moreover, if Newcastle has no claims in the monument area as they say, then the withdrawal piece of this puzzle is a red herring.

I feel obtuse....what am I missing? This is an interesting topic, particularly in light that there are movements out there seeking to turn over federal, public land to the states. I'm not sure where I stand on that since I haven't done the analysis, but the idea is scary since I'm skeptical that it would benefit small-scale prospectors.

The new claims are not owned by New Castle Gold. They are owned by Castle Mountain Venture and Viceroy Gold Corp as you already pointed out. That's why I gave you the link to the 2015 corporate name change and suggested you look into the transfers of interest. If you follow that trail you will find that "3rd parties filed a bunch of claims prior to the proclamation".
New Castle is being completely honest when they state:

We are pleased to report that the Company's claim holdings, private land held by the Company and certain adjacent BLM lands are not included in the Monument.

But that's not the whole truth. Find out who owns Castle Mountain Venture and Viceroy Gold Corp and you will understand why the situation in Crested Butte is related.

As far as the States taking over the federal managed public lands you really don't need to consider that possibility. All the western public land States agreed to never attempt to take the public lands into their State as one of the conditions of Statehood. From the Colorado Enabling Act Section 6:

And be it further enacted, That the legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of the act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States

You will find something similar in all the other western public land states.