Responses on AZGS-ADMMR name change

Last Thursday, I asked for opinions and recommendations on naming the combined AZGS-ADMMR agency. A couple folks posted comments on that blog posting, but most sent emails to me directly or copied me on email discussions within the Mining Foundation of the Southwest listserve. I compile all that I received so far, without names but where people identified it, I indicated their type of affiliation or background. As new ones come in, I'll add them to the list.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

1. I am alarmed at the tone of this discussion. It would seem that the discussion is about a done deal, and not pending legislation. I do not believe that this merger is in the best interest of the stakeholders. Arizona is one of the USA leaders in mineral production, and NEEDS its own agency that is responsive to the mining industry, academics, and the citizens of the state. [this was originally posted as a comment on the “Arizona Geology” blog]

2. I do not support the combining of ADMMR and the AGS. We will be removing all materials lent to ADMMR if the merger is approved. – [mining company owners]

3. If it’s a sticking point, maybe consider the name: Arizona Department of Geology and Mineral Resources (with two divisions, Geological Survey Division, and Mining and Mineral Resources Division [maybe put Oil and Gas Commission under this division as well or maybe it would be its own division since it has some regulatory capacity]). – [president of an Arizona professional geology organization]

Saturday, February 16, 2008

[the following is a single commentary]:

(1) The pressing important issue for the stakeholders should be the preservation of the functions of ADMMR--for which the proposed legislation seems to provide-- not whether "mines" is in the name. Perhaps this has come from the "industry" itself, which has always felt "owed" this word in the name of a State agency. "Division of Mineral Resources" is a reasonable name.

(2) The name of AZGS should not be changed. Combining the "ands" such as in the Bureau of Mines "and" Geology has always seemed grammatically awkward. "Geological Survey" indicates a broad-enough umbrella for all the functions.

(3) Knowing how often ambitious legislative undertakings one year result in "undoing" legislation the following year, perhaps the Museum and MIC should be managed as they are now until time and reality call for a change in that assumption. [former board member of the AZ Mining & Mineral Museum Foundation]

Monday, February 18, 2008 [postings 1-7 are from an email dialogue among members of the Mining Foundation of the Southwest]

1. I suggest the "Arizona Bureau of Mines and Geology.”

2. I agree, let's keep it simple. I too suggest "Arizona Bureau of Mines and Geology." The new organization then would have a "Mines and Mineral Resources Division" and a "Geological Survey Division".

3. I favor Arizona Bureau of Mines and Geology. Thanks and best wishes.

4. Folks, I believe we all recognize that we will be unable to block the merger between AZGS and ADMMR. That said, I remain firmly convinced that we need some reference to mines (preferred) or mining in the name of the new entity. Further, we should keep it simple. If most of us could agree, we could submit our preference as a group (unless our Articles or Bylaws prohibit doing so). My strong first choice would be: Arizona Bureau of Mines and Geology

5. The Mining Foundation of the Southwest is prohibited by its tax status from responding to political issues as an entity. According, you should respond individually, but keep in mind that there are any number of other groups that could do so.

6. I too would like to see [commentor #2’s] extended suggestion implemented.

You have done a good job of making your intentions clear. I think it is critical to have a minerals emphasis. We are clearly in a mineral commodities long term shortfall world wide. Arizona stands to benefit greatly if we do the right things. For many decades the State has given minerals short shrift. So much so that I think it is an embarrassment. Considering mining projects in the mill will put billions of dollars into the State coffers it is "politely put" short sighted.

I would be happy to work with you, or a committee to testify etc. to get a more reasonable budget for the State agency(s) to insure you are able to be more aggressive in your minerals mission.

7. Following up and agreeing with [commenter #2 above], Arizona Bureau of Mines and Geology sounds fine. As is (the Bill), this will be just a cosmetic change and will not address real facts - the advocacy of mining in Arizona and the leadership and objectives of the department. From leadership point of view, there must be a new position of Director of the newly created State Agency - incumbent must have high civic and industry reputation and broad overall experience in mining, metallurgy and mineral economics etc. with exceptional leadership quality.He/She must also have be a PE. The House Bill suggest that the AGS director becomes the director of the combined new agency. The current AGS director do not have the above mentioned qualifications to fill the position of Director of the combined agency. He can continue as State Geologist of the Geological Survey Division, but not the director of the New Arizona Bureau of Mines and Geology. The current Director of ADMMR is much more qualified for the Director's position of the new agency then what is proposed in the House Bill.

Personally I opposed the HB 2584 as it is written.

8. I would favor "Arizona Bureau of Mines & Geology" [Humboldt, AZ]

[note: the following email comments were added after the initial posting above - LA]

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

I agree with __ and __'s proposals. The two divisions could then maintain their own goals and operate independently, much as they now do. This seems quite important from the comments.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

I am less concerned with the name and more concerned with the purpose and mission statement. What will the mission be? Are we for mining still? Or are we against it? Let's just say that up front.

I would say that the governor is against mining as she has come out opposing the new mine in Superior that Resolution Copper has been trying to work out. So I am suspicious of any government dealings with merging a pro-mining entity into something other than pro-mining. The mining industry is already under represented as it is, obviously, since a pro-mining representative would not have even considered merging the ADMMR into any other entity.