Attended a federal hearing today for a preliminary injunction delaying mining permits issued to ORC by Army Corps and NMFS – Judge Michael Hogan will issue a written decision but no specific date when we can expect it.
As promised here is a brief rundown of the federal hearing today on the merits of a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the matter of HALCYN OLENEC; JOHN B. JONES III; JULIE JONES; THOMAS STARK; TERI STARK; LARRY WHITE; BANDON WOODLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION; and OREGON COAST ALLIANCE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; WILLIAM W. STELLE, JR., in his official capacity as Acting Regional Administrator; UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, an agency of the Department of the Army ;and ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP, JR., Lieutenant General, in his official capacity as the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General for the Corps,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs’ attorney, Courtney Johnson of the Crag Law Center began her argument by presenting witnesses to establish the impact on local residents if mining activities commence. Jack Jones and Tom Stark, both members of Bandon Woodlands Community Association testified how they would have to alter their daily habits to accommodate the 24/7 mining operation. Stark resides only .4 miles from the proposed mine site indicated he would have to monitor his spring fed water supply for contamination.
Johnson then detailed how the agencies had failed to adequately consider the potential impacts of hexavalent chromium on the wildlife and the drinking water. The proposed mine is the first ever chromium mine to be granted federal permits in the US. Amongst the points raised is the management of the waste water and failure to determine the direction in which area ground water flows making monitoring and permit mitigation conditions difficult if not impossible to enforce.
Hexavalent chromium has been present in test holes with the largest concentrations occurring in the area of the Seven Devils mining site where the ground had been previously disturbed during unregulated mining back in the 1940s. The plaintiffs argue that hexavalent chromium is toxic and a carcinogen, is present, persistent and forming in the local area and is a significant threat to habitat and humans.
Oregon Resources’ parent company has petitioned to intervene in the case and join with the Army Corps and NMFS and was represented today by Dan Smith and Steven Blacklock and attorneys from Stoel Rives. Dan Smith submitted written declaration but did not speak today.
Counsel for both federal agencies argued they had followed all proper procedures in granting permits to ORC and argued the risk of hexavalent chromium in the area was minimal. Stoel Rives made similar arguments on behalf of ORC and also reproached the plaintiffs for waiting to file the suit after the company had obtained financing to begin operations. Asking the judge to deny the preliminary injunction is based, in part, on the argument of financial hardship placed on the company because financing is already in place.
Environmental damage is considered unrecoverable and permanent whereas economic damages are not. The law says that when weighing jobs against the environment, the environment shall receive precedent. Judge Hogan hails from Myrtle Point as I understand and the hearing was an opportunity for him to share his knowledge of Coos County and the mining sites. Hogan added that he was happy to see so many south Coos County residents in the court today. (No offense to north county residents, but Hogan clearly has a preference for the southern end)
Johnson was armed with her rebuttal to the defense arguments and upon closing Hogan advised he was make his decision in writing. Plaintiffs have requested a response by February 1 but the judge is not bound by that date. ORC has indicated they wish to begin mining by February 1, however, it is unlikely they will begin before the judge’s decision.
More later when I get back from Eugene
Everyone I have spoken to about ORC concurs the goal of present ORC management is to flip the deal. The more leases they have the more their stock is worth.
You posted “curious video”. You also posted related “five ORC management” income during fiscal 2010. Weren’t two of the five – Wilson and Smith – able to unload almost 2 million shares of IMC (ORC parent) that had been worthless until such time as ORC agreemnts were in hand and federal agency permits were in hand. What’s probability they will they be able to unload their remaining million shares plus make a considerable profit exercising options held and selling shares when this court matter is behind them and the county executes an agreement re county lands mining? Maybe even more profit when everything is in place and ORC sells out to a major mining operation.
Yes, I posted some curious video footage regarding the Port and ORC – personally, if ORC thought it was doing itself a favor by rushing the permit process through so as to obtain financing more quickly, then they are responsible for any delays resulting from their own haste.
As I recall, wasn’t there something fishy about the way Army Corps issued this permit in the first place? Wasn’t there a question that the Port director Jeff Bishop exerted some influence, or something? If ORC or its advocates rushed the process then they may have to suffer the consequences.
Also, haven’t they still got permits to obtain, like a haul permit?
May I suggest that readers ask their lawyers to explain the legal doctrine re “superior knowledge”. ORC is not in the business of promulgating law, rules, regulations, governing mining matters covering chromium, talc, coal, or whatever. They are not tasked with determining what may be harmful to people and fish – our bloated federal government agencies are. To obtain its permits, ORC told the agencies of their findings. If they were not honest – whole new ball game. If they were honest and only partially complete with the data submitted – shame on you federal agencies. You all knowledgeable one – federal government agencies, are tasked with determining if ORC derserves permits or not. If ORC findings were determined to be lacking, come and do your own analysis before you feds send permits. You folks have thousands of federal employees, I have two fellows with a bucket and shovel and some aged analysis machine. I believe what I told you to get permits was accurate and complete. The country, including ORC, must belive that if there is any risk involved, ORC would not have received permits.
Not so sure, ORC will have the case you outline and here is why. Much of the information the permitting agencies relied upon came from the applicant, (part of the rub is they relied too heavily on the applicant’s word). If the permits are enjoined because of new information that belies ORC claims, the applicant will not have much of a case.
Dear Taxpayers: For those who read the above text and who are not members of the bar (lawyers), or who were lawyers and screwedd up, there is legal doctrine referred to as “the laws of reliance”. Ask your lawyer to explain. Dan Smith’s brief – written by the ambulance chasing lawyer of course – is one of the best arguments that I have seen in such matters (a few words, direct to the heart of the matter) and that says, Dear Federal Government Agencies, I relied on what you told me and what you gave to me (permits, etc.) (telling me that everything was oh so peachy) and I borrowed money at exorbitant interest rates (that I must repay with interest and maybe penaties), and I have spent other huge amounts of monies (but I don’t have a clue how much right now – but it’s a bunch), and if this here rural country judge rules against me, I expect you federal aganecies to make me whole and then I will expect you to add big bucks for my time, trouble, inconvenience, and removal of the processing plant that I can’t use. This, fellow overtaxed taxpayers, could be the beginning of a big mess.