An antiquated law rules mining in the West(hcn.org)
hcn.org
An antiquated law rules mining in the West
https://www.hcn.org/issues/55.8/infographic-mining-an-antiquated-law-rules-mining-in-the-west
110 comments
Agreed! The article would be stronger if it didn't conflate environmental pollution issues (covered by subsequent EPA approvals) and conveniently leave out corporate taxes.
If author thinks royalties should be imposed, make that point! But don't handwave at 'all the bad stuff THEY do' as justification.
> Then, as now, corporations could pull unlimited quantities of minerals from their claims without paying a cent of royalties to the minerals’ actual owner — the American public. This amounts to a subsidy of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, mostly to multinational corporations.
If author thinks royalties should be imposed, make that point! But don't handwave at 'all the bad stuff THEY do' as justification.
> Then, as now, corporations could pull unlimited quantities of minerals from their claims without paying a cent of royalties to the minerals’ actual owner — the American public. This amounts to a subsidy of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, mostly to multinational corporations.
The article would be stronger if it stuck to one issue. Is the problem the clean-up, the fact that there's little environmental oversight when exploring, or the fact that the there should be royalties? They've conflated so many issues and didn't give any specifics. How does exploring negatively affect the environment? What does reclamation look like today rather than the 1800s?
how does not exploring negatively effect human prosperity and flourishing? That seems to be the question one should ask.
I’m skeptical that individual prospectors have a meaningful part in modern mining, or even really continue to exist in practice. At least as anything more than hobbyists.
This is the kind of thing we can reason about a priori all we want, but the, I suppose, posteriori is very straightforward and knowable: either a population of independent miners benefiting from this rule as you describe exists, or it does not.
I don’t know the answer, and don’t really expect much anyone else here to know. But I’d expect that for those connected to the industry it’s very plain. Without facts though, everything else is hot air.
Anyway, the only way I’ve really heard of startup mining concerns is as private equity scams targeting rich-but-not-wealthy dentist and chamber of commerce types.
This is the kind of thing we can reason about a priori all we want, but the, I suppose, posteriori is very straightforward and knowable: either a population of independent miners benefiting from this rule as you describe exists, or it does not.
I don’t know the answer, and don’t really expect much anyone else here to know. But I’d expect that for those connected to the industry it’s very plain. Without facts though, everything else is hot air.
Anyway, the only way I’ve really heard of startup mining concerns is as private equity scams targeting rich-but-not-wealthy dentist and chamber of commerce types.
You make a compelling point about the role of expertise in discussions like these. While firsthand experience is valuable, it's also important to note that thoughtful discussion can be insightful even without it.
For example, in the context of the U.S. mining history, the 1872 Mining Law was originally designed to encourage individual prospectors to explore the West. Although the mining industry has evolved significantly, the law and its legacy still affect land management and resource extraction policies today. While most of us probably aren't mining industry veterans, discussing these policies can lead to a broader understanding that benefits everyone.
While it's hard to say how many small ball operations benefit from these regulations, a lack of opportunist prospectors does not imply there’s a lack of opportunity. It could be argued that it's crucial to preserve this opportunity for future participants even if presently there may be few.
It's worth mentioning that limiting discussions to experts could stifle diversity of thought. Take the legal system: many landmark decisions, from Brown v. Board of Education to Roe v. Wade, were influenced not just by legal experts but also by public opinion and social movements. If discussions were closed off to 'experts,' we might miss out on valuable perspectives that can drive change.
In short, while it's good to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge and authority to enjoin discussions, it's equally important to remember that these limitations likely apply to everyone, including those attempting to determine who is permitted to participate in conversations.
For example, in the context of the U.S. mining history, the 1872 Mining Law was originally designed to encourage individual prospectors to explore the West. Although the mining industry has evolved significantly, the law and its legacy still affect land management and resource extraction policies today. While most of us probably aren't mining industry veterans, discussing these policies can lead to a broader understanding that benefits everyone.
While it's hard to say how many small ball operations benefit from these regulations, a lack of opportunist prospectors does not imply there’s a lack of opportunity. It could be argued that it's crucial to preserve this opportunity for future participants even if presently there may be few.
It's worth mentioning that limiting discussions to experts could stifle diversity of thought. Take the legal system: many landmark decisions, from Brown v. Board of Education to Roe v. Wade, were influenced not just by legal experts but also by public opinion and social movements. If discussions were closed off to 'experts,' we might miss out on valuable perspectives that can drive change.
In short, while it's good to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge and authority to enjoin discussions, it's equally important to remember that these limitations likely apply to everyone, including those attempting to determine who is permitted to participate in conversations.
I know people buying and working claims in previously worked hard rock, silver gold. Some do well. Small ball, but good individually.
I also know a guy looking for funding to set up a mill for his gold claims with proven lab results.
> I’d expect that for those connected to the industry it’s very plain.
I respect your humility. Well done.
> Without facts though, everything else is hot air.
Most opinions on this thread are (kindly) incomplete.
I also know a guy looking for funding to set up a mill for his gold claims with proven lab results.
> I’d expect that for those connected to the industry it’s very plain.
I respect your humility. Well done.
> Without facts though, everything else is hot air.
Most opinions on this thread are (kindly) incomplete.
> EPA
And there are State regulators, though typically just a handful. https://dws.wyo.gov/dws-division/mine-inspections-safety/
The federal regulator MSHA has massive power and they visit on schedules (often quarterly, depends on mine size) and unannounced. Anyone can call MSHA hotline and file anonymous report, and MSHA investigates and writes citations. MSHA inspector can literally stop work and send staff home with pay.
https://arlweb.msha.gov/PROGRAMS/assess/citationsandorders.a...
> While it's true that the state does not benefit financially from mineral extraction in the form of royalties
Mineral royalties go to feds with a split to States. Wyoming legislature has a flowchart which says in part, "Federal mineral royalties are generally split evenly between the federal government and the state governments of origin ...".
https://www.wyoleg.gov/2021/Databook/Operations/Revenue/f-Fe...
From HCN article, "The law hasn’t fundamentally changed in 151 years ...".
Maybe it works okay and stands the test of time. Along the way extraction pollution (water air noise) and remediation have changed significantly.
And there are State regulators, though typically just a handful. https://dws.wyo.gov/dws-division/mine-inspections-safety/
The federal regulator MSHA has massive power and they visit on schedules (often quarterly, depends on mine size) and unannounced. Anyone can call MSHA hotline and file anonymous report, and MSHA investigates and writes citations. MSHA inspector can literally stop work and send staff home with pay.
https://arlweb.msha.gov/PROGRAMS/assess/citationsandorders.a...
> While it's true that the state does not benefit financially from mineral extraction in the form of royalties
Mineral royalties go to feds with a split to States. Wyoming legislature has a flowchart which says in part, "Federal mineral royalties are generally split evenly between the federal government and the state governments of origin ...".
https://www.wyoleg.gov/2021/Databook/Operations/Revenue/f-Fe...
From HCN article, "The law hasn’t fundamentally changed in 151 years ...".
Maybe it works okay and stands the test of time. Along the way extraction pollution (water air noise) and remediation have changed significantly.
Except you're forgetting about the issue of how to incorporate indigenous decision making on their traditional land. This law doesn't require any consent or permission with local indigenous peoples.
Would that entail the entirety of the United States?
Indigenous people would have had a say, if the claims were located in the nearby Bears Ears National Monument. But it was just next to it, so why would they get a say?
Indigenous people would have had a say, if the claims were located in the nearby Bears Ears National Monument. But it was just next to it, so why would they get a say?
In the States where I have experience, nearby property owners due comment about new/changed permits. And they can and do sue the permitting agencies to stop mine development. It's NIMBY when people stop local sand and gravel pits which forces those buildng materials to be trucked in.
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/aggregate-sand-...
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/aggregate-sand-...
I was forgetting that, I'm sorry for my oversight. You bring up an excellent point!
Considering the original owners of the land is absolutely fundamental, and their genuine input into the environmental assessment process is crucial to creating a sustainable use of the environment.
Considering the original owners of the land is absolutely fundamental, and their genuine input into the environmental assessment process is crucial to creating a sustainable use of the environment.
/s ?
Is that how you see it, Andrew, as a bad idea? What makes you say that?
As in, what makes you believe that considering original owners would be considered a bad idea and therefore likely to be delivered sarcastically?
As in, what makes you believe that considering original owners would be considered a bad idea and therefore likely to be delivered sarcastically?
[deleted]
The original owners don't exist anymore. We probably don't even know who they were. Control of land in America was never an unbroken line of custody by a single tribe. You could consider the most recent non-white owners, but that's a pointless distinction.
[deleted]
Aside from patrick451's comment, what makes you think the original owners can make effective decisions for environmental sustainability today? Their descendants probably can't.
I'm not the first person to own my hatchback, but I'm not going to consult the previous owner if I want to repaint it. Not incorporating indigenous decision making is a valid answer to the question of how to incorporate it.
In the case where the previous owner is still the current owner and they have a treaty with the government to that effect which is being violated by "giving you" the right to strip the car of the engine mirrors and tyres, what then?
We all like a good analogy .. but "previous owner" doesn't hit the mark in many cases of mining in the US, Canada, and Australia (for example) not to mention globally.
We all like a good analogy .. but "previous owner" doesn't hit the mark in many cases of mining in the US, Canada, and Australia (for example) not to mention globally.
> have a treaty with the government to that effect which is being violated by "giving you"
The treaty was violated, but it isn't currently still being violated, is it?
My understanding of international law is that treaties are considered terminated once either party violates them. Does that apply to internal treaties like this too? These usually work within the framework of sovereign nations.
I might be getting way too pedantic with this, but I don't know if that's how it works.
The treaty was violated, but it isn't currently still being violated, is it?
My understanding of international law is that treaties are considered terminated once either party violates them. Does that apply to internal treaties like this too? These usually work within the framework of sovereign nations.
I might be getting way too pedantic with this, but I don't know if that's how it works.
> I might be getting way too pedantic with this
Being pedantic is sometimes a good way to escape the deeper moral questions at play. It may give give us lawyerly oh-and-ah moments but the benefits are illusionary. The underlying problem remains unresolved.
Now, many of the lands that various government (around the world) now own were acquired by force. The original owners lost control of that land and sometimes now live on the sidelines of society in abject conditions.
When there are treaties with indigenous people, then the governments should try to adhere to their spirit (if not the exact letter) as much as feasible. Some consulation and a small profit share for things like mining are the right way to go (when the treaties imply economic rights to the indigenous party).
If we don't follow this, your argument is essentially saying: might is right and rules of the jungle apply. Treaties are agreements. Agreements mostly protect the weak because the stronger party always has the incentive to break the agreement when the terms become inconvenient to them.
Should your bank suddenly simply renege on your fixed rate morgage contract and raise your interest sky high because it just _can_ ? No. Agreements and treaties should have some sanctity.
Being pedantic is sometimes a good way to escape the deeper moral questions at play. It may give give us lawyerly oh-and-ah moments but the benefits are illusionary. The underlying problem remains unresolved.
Now, many of the lands that various government (around the world) now own were acquired by force. The original owners lost control of that land and sometimes now live on the sidelines of society in abject conditions.
When there are treaties with indigenous people, then the governments should try to adhere to their spirit (if not the exact letter) as much as feasible. Some consulation and a small profit share for things like mining are the right way to go (when the treaties imply economic rights to the indigenous party).
If we don't follow this, your argument is essentially saying: might is right and rules of the jungle apply. Treaties are agreements. Agreements mostly protect the weak because the stronger party always has the incentive to break the agreement when the terms become inconvenient to them.
Should your bank suddenly simply renege on your fixed rate morgage contract and raise your interest sky high because it just _can_ ? No. Agreements and treaties should have some sanctity.
> then the governments should try to adhere to their spirit (if not the exact letter) as much as feasible.
I guess my question here is, do you think it is feasible for politicians in a democratic government that need to campaign for re-election to uphold a treaty that the voting populace wants to break? If yes, then why were so few of them upheld? If no, then your argument seems to legitimize a lot of the breakages that have happened throughout history.
> If we don't follow this, your argument is essentially saying: might is right and rules of the jungle apply.
I mean, doesn't the law of the jungle apply pretty heavily to international relations? I'm not saying that this rule is the ultimate moral good, but in a de facto sense, doesn't it predict actions better than anything else?
After WWII, the strongest countries (generally those with nukes) wanted a rules based system because the prospect of another war was absolutely terrifying. And so we had a rules based system. But whenever one of those countries has deviated from the rules, they're generally given wide latitude and few consequences, because reigning them in is really tough.
This seems to be the same reason the US argues that the treaty with Cuba for Guantanamo Bay is still in effect (and the US keeps making trivial payments for it every so often as described by the treaty). Cuba doesn't have the strength to actually break the treaty themselves.
Do you have some sort of argument that the law of the jungle doesn't apply?
I guess my question here is, do you think it is feasible for politicians in a democratic government that need to campaign for re-election to uphold a treaty that the voting populace wants to break? If yes, then why were so few of them upheld? If no, then your argument seems to legitimize a lot of the breakages that have happened throughout history.
> If we don't follow this, your argument is essentially saying: might is right and rules of the jungle apply.
I mean, doesn't the law of the jungle apply pretty heavily to international relations? I'm not saying that this rule is the ultimate moral good, but in a de facto sense, doesn't it predict actions better than anything else?
After WWII, the strongest countries (generally those with nukes) wanted a rules based system because the prospect of another war was absolutely terrifying. And so we had a rules based system. But whenever one of those countries has deviated from the rules, they're generally given wide latitude and few consequences, because reigning them in is really tough.
This seems to be the same reason the US argues that the treaty with Cuba for Guantanamo Bay is still in effect (and the US keeps making trivial payments for it every so often as described by the treaty). Cuba doesn't have the strength to actually break the treaty themselves.
Do you have some sort of argument that the law of the jungle doesn't apply?
> I guess my question here is, do you think it is feasible for politicians in a democratic government that need to campaign for re-election to uphold a treaty that the voting populace wants to break?
Interesting point -- it gave me food for thought. At various points of time, many voters were against rights for blacks, against interacial marriage, against desegregation in schools, against rights for gay people etc. On many occasions the courts stepped in and made decisions that the politicians couldn't make on grounds of equity, fairness, human rights etc. So enforcement of some of these treaties should be a matter for the courts.
It would be interesting to read some of these treaties and see exactly what they say. I'm sure the US Supreme court has already ruled on this matter and the issue is considered settled. My guess is that many of these treaties are subject to the will of the executive and legislature. So if they don't want to enforce them, courts beyond a point can't do much. In any case, courts are also political creatures: they sense the mood of the citizens and the various polical power structures. I doubt that indigenous people would be politically or financially important in their calculus. The best case indigenous people can make is fairness. Even then, their claims by now are difficult to prove. They might say a parcel of land was owned by them -- however, history is patchy and often oral. Records are also made by the victors and therefore again stacked against them too.
Generally it's just a good idea to give a local population some compensation for the large externality a mining operation creates, treaty or not. Democracies owe it to their citizens which are their "shareholders". Not investing in the local communities and say they are owed nothing means that future generations are unproductive, have issues with crime, alcohol, drugs and feel disconnected. Invest in people to make them productive and whichever country you live in will be more happy and prosperous. Otherwise the whole country just gets dragged down a bit. It makes sense morally and economically.
> Do you have some sort of argument that the law of the jungle doesn't apply?
Again a good question. In the domain of international relations it is still effectively the law of the jungle. The UN is supposed to protect the rights of the small and weak countries but that is in theory only.
Still, countries are less likely to go invading their smaller neighbours in 2020 than, say, 1820. So you can say the law of the jungle while still generally applicable is no longer as starkly apparent as it once was. Maybe by 2120, the UN will be truly on the side of fairness rather than military/economic might.
However, within countries domestic law is all about using equity and fairness as a principle. The law of the jungle does NOT apply; stronger parties cannot impose their will on the weaker party just because they can. Domestic violence is a crime. Racism/discrimination is a crime. Similarly, dispossesing indigenous people from the lands they enjoyed and casting them aside definitely feels unfair. Allowing them to levy small charges and taxes (subject to overall control and veto by state/federal government) on their traditional lands (for which some historical records or reporting exists) is nothing different to how cities levy all kinds of taxes on businesses operating in their "territory". These taxes should be used to the betterment of the whole community rather than get concentrated in the hands of the powerful elders. Maybe the distribution can be done by the state/federal government. Anyways I'm sure all this has been written about and I'm not adding anything new to the subject.
Interesting point -- it gave me food for thought. At various points of time, many voters were against rights for blacks, against interacial marriage, against desegregation in schools, against rights for gay people etc. On many occasions the courts stepped in and made decisions that the politicians couldn't make on grounds of equity, fairness, human rights etc. So enforcement of some of these treaties should be a matter for the courts.
It would be interesting to read some of these treaties and see exactly what they say. I'm sure the US Supreme court has already ruled on this matter and the issue is considered settled. My guess is that many of these treaties are subject to the will of the executive and legislature. So if they don't want to enforce them, courts beyond a point can't do much. In any case, courts are also political creatures: they sense the mood of the citizens and the various polical power structures. I doubt that indigenous people would be politically or financially important in their calculus. The best case indigenous people can make is fairness. Even then, their claims by now are difficult to prove. They might say a parcel of land was owned by them -- however, history is patchy and often oral. Records are also made by the victors and therefore again stacked against them too.
Generally it's just a good idea to give a local population some compensation for the large externality a mining operation creates, treaty or not. Democracies owe it to their citizens which are their "shareholders". Not investing in the local communities and say they are owed nothing means that future generations are unproductive, have issues with crime, alcohol, drugs and feel disconnected. Invest in people to make them productive and whichever country you live in will be more happy and prosperous. Otherwise the whole country just gets dragged down a bit. It makes sense morally and economically.
> Do you have some sort of argument that the law of the jungle doesn't apply?
Again a good question. In the domain of international relations it is still effectively the law of the jungle. The UN is supposed to protect the rights of the small and weak countries but that is in theory only.
Still, countries are less likely to go invading their smaller neighbours in 2020 than, say, 1820. So you can say the law of the jungle while still generally applicable is no longer as starkly apparent as it once was. Maybe by 2120, the UN will be truly on the side of fairness rather than military/economic might.
However, within countries domestic law is all about using equity and fairness as a principle. The law of the jungle does NOT apply; stronger parties cannot impose their will on the weaker party just because they can. Domestic violence is a crime. Racism/discrimination is a crime. Similarly, dispossesing indigenous people from the lands they enjoyed and casting them aside definitely feels unfair. Allowing them to levy small charges and taxes (subject to overall control and veto by state/federal government) on their traditional lands (for which some historical records or reporting exists) is nothing different to how cities levy all kinds of taxes on businesses operating in their "territory". These taxes should be used to the betterment of the whole community rather than get concentrated in the hands of the powerful elders. Maybe the distribution can be done by the state/federal government. Anyways I'm sure all this has been written about and I'm not adding anything new to the subject.
My understanding is that there isn't really any international body that steps in to rule on (say) treaties made by the USofA and various Indian nations.
History.com states (correctly or not) that "From 1778 to 1871, the United States signed some 368 treaties with various Indigenous people across the North American continent."
https://www.history.com/news/native-american-broken-treaties
Given the article that sourced this thread is about uranium mining in Utah, it might be of interest to recap how that has been handled in the past eighty years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_and_the_Navajo_...
The dot point summary would be "not great" (understatement), although the Navajo Nation did get saddled with 521 abandoned uranium mine areas most of which require a great deal of clean up and for which (IIRC) they have yet to receive any paper towels.
History.com states (correctly or not) that "From 1778 to 1871, the United States signed some 368 treaties with various Indigenous people across the North American continent."
https://www.history.com/news/native-american-broken-treaties
Given the article that sourced this thread is about uranium mining in Utah, it might be of interest to recap how that has been handled in the past eighty years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_and_the_Navajo_...
The dot point summary would be "not great" (understatement), although the Navajo Nation did get saddled with 521 abandoned uranium mine areas most of which require a great deal of clean up and for which (IIRC) they have yet to receive any paper towels.
My understanding is that US case law suggests "Congress has the power to abrogate Indians' treaty rights, ... though we usually insist that Congress clearly express its intent to do so." [1]
If the treaty is violated without clear intent by Congress, it would still be in force, and the affected Tribe or Tribes could sue for performance, possibly even affected persons, if they are deemed to have standing.
I don't quite see the point of a treaty if it terminates once it's violated though?
[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/679/ (sorry, I don't think I can link directly to the text in the opinion)
If the treaty is violated without clear intent by Congress, it would still be in force, and the affected Tribe or Tribes could sue for performance, possibly even affected persons, if they are deemed to have standing.
I don't quite see the point of a treaty if it terminates once it's violated though?
[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/679/ (sorry, I don't think I can link directly to the text in the opinion)
> If the treaty is violated without clear intent by Congress, it would still be in force, and the affected Tribe or Tribes could sue for performance, possibly even affected persons, if they are deemed to have standing.
This is probably the part I was missing. That seems to be a departure from regular international relations standards, but there's a couple of clauses in the constitution specifically about relations with natives, so it makes sense there's some subtleties to the subject.
Thanks for the link, I appreciate it.
This is probably the part I was missing. That seems to be a departure from regular international relations standards, but there's a couple of clauses in the constitution specifically about relations with natives, so it makes sense there's some subtleties to the subject.
Thanks for the link, I appreciate it.
I doubt you have the same emotional attachment to traditional values, unless its a Subaru.
Did you purchase it outright or have the previous owners murdered?
I bought it outright. Salvage, so it's possible that the previous owners died in bringing it to market.
While I see the analogy you're trying to make, paul_funyun, I believe comparing the ownership of a hatchback to traditional indigenous lands oversimplifies the situation.
Resource extraction is a wealth concentrator. it takes what is usually a public resource and converts it into wealth for very few people. Very few countries have avoided this giveaway of wealth by the state to the wealthy. Norway is one such example.
We don't need to amend staking fees. We need the government to own significant equity in any resource extraction operation.
Our foreign policy supports Western mining interests in the developing world. Any attempt to change this seems to result in some combination of crippling eceonomic sanctions and/or a mysterious coup by an authoritarian but US-friendly regime.
Others have mentioned water rights and they're correct that this situation too is arcane and ridiculous. The "use it or lose it" water rights on the Colorado river causes us to grow water-intensive crops like alfalfa and sell them to Saudi Arabia (where growing alfalfa is illegal for this reason) and China.
I'd extend this kind of public equity scheme to intellectual property too. Most drugs are developed with Federal funding and are largely just given away, again as a wealth concentrator. That fruits of Federal funding should come with public equity in commercialization.
We don't need to amend staking fees. We need the government to own significant equity in any resource extraction operation.
Our foreign policy supports Western mining interests in the developing world. Any attempt to change this seems to result in some combination of crippling eceonomic sanctions and/or a mysterious coup by an authoritarian but US-friendly regime.
Others have mentioned water rights and they're correct that this situation too is arcane and ridiculous. The "use it or lose it" water rights on the Colorado river causes us to grow water-intensive crops like alfalfa and sell them to Saudi Arabia (where growing alfalfa is illegal for this reason) and China.
I'd extend this kind of public equity scheme to intellectual property too. Most drugs are developed with Federal funding and are largely just given away, again as a wealth concentrator. That fruits of Federal funding should come with public equity in commercialization.
At the bottom of the article it states there’s a 15% royalty on oil etc and that there’s 2-3 billion USD of minerals produced from federal land annually. There’s also 11.36 million acres claimed with a $165 annual maintenance fee per acre for a total gov revenue of $1.875 billion not including the higher first-year claim fees. If there were no oil/gas/coal/fuel extraction on claimed lands, the effective royalty garnered by this system would be in excess of 50% (1.875/[2 to 3 billion]). More data — specially on annual fuel extraction from federal lands — is needed, but this article as it stands makes a terribly poor argument that the current state of economic affairs is a failure. The numbers actually imply this sort of gambling system may be better for the government than a royalty system.
This reminds me of how, according to my TikTok feed, Jade miners prefer to sell their extracted rocks to blind buyers for a fixed price per rock (only a few of which will be revealed to contain valuable jade once cut open) rather than cut them open themselves and only profit from the lucky few rocks. (Or maybe that’s just a small part of the business, as most other gemstone mining doesn’t seem to work that way).
This reminds me of how, according to my TikTok feed, Jade miners prefer to sell their extracted rocks to blind buyers for a fixed price per rock (only a few of which will be revealed to contain valuable jade once cut open) rather than cut them open themselves and only profit from the lucky few rocks. (Or maybe that’s just a small part of the business, as most other gemstone mining doesn’t seem to work that way).
A)11.36 million acres refers to the land leased for either fuel or non-fuel minerals. So if you wanted to compare the size of the royalties to the annual fees for the land, you would need to figure out what percentage of the land was used for fuel versus non-fuel mining.
B) The $165 is per 20 acres, not per acre. "In FY 2022, the BLM collected a total of almost $94 million in fees associated with nearly 489,100 active mining claims on Federal lands"
B) The $165 is per 20 acres, not per acre. "In FY 2022, the BLM collected a total of almost $94 million in fees associated with nearly 489,100 active mining claims on Federal lands"
Thanks yeah I implied A in my comment. Re: B, oops! Thanks.
My point is the author failed to dig up the one number needed to really see if there’s even a problem here.
My point is the author failed to dig up the one number needed to really see if there’s even a problem here.
What would be the purpose of hiking the fees except to make it more expensive to produce things? It would make sense if the low staking fee were being abused by bad actors using it to “squat” on things they don’t use - and I bet that does occur to an extent. But it seems like anybody else interested in the land economically could have also just filed a claim?
It actually seems like a good thing to keep the land in the commons and license it out. I think all land that’s not actively being used should belong to the commons instead of private individuals. To do otherwise allows land speculators and those engaging in rentiership to steal economic output from those who are actually producing value - if anybody’s going to do that, better for it to be the entity paying for roads and schools. The corporation will still pay income taxes on its labor, capital costs which are just income of some other entity, and corporate taxes - overtaxing the commons to try to shift more of the value-capture there is actually an inefficient form of double taxation that hurts international competitiveness.
One thing that really bothers me about this article is the tone about “ravaging” or exploiting the land as if all mining is this terribly evil thing. I for one like having inexpensive metals and energy. Until very very recently in human history in a small set of developed countries, all mining was done by slaves or the most desperate people in a society - it still is in the vast majority of developing economies engaging in mining, and it was even in the US until about a hundred years ago. I like having a 21st century standard of living and good but not perfect environmental regulations more than I like slavery or living as if I’m in the Stone Age.
It actually seems like a good thing to keep the land in the commons and license it out. I think all land that’s not actively being used should belong to the commons instead of private individuals. To do otherwise allows land speculators and those engaging in rentiership to steal economic output from those who are actually producing value - if anybody’s going to do that, better for it to be the entity paying for roads and schools. The corporation will still pay income taxes on its labor, capital costs which are just income of some other entity, and corporate taxes - overtaxing the commons to try to shift more of the value-capture there is actually an inefficient form of double taxation that hurts international competitiveness.
One thing that really bothers me about this article is the tone about “ravaging” or exploiting the land as if all mining is this terribly evil thing. I for one like having inexpensive metals and energy. Until very very recently in human history in a small set of developed countries, all mining was done by slaves or the most desperate people in a society - it still is in the vast majority of developing economies engaging in mining, and it was even in the US until about a hundred years ago. I like having a 21st century standard of living and good but not perfect environmental regulations more than I like slavery or living as if I’m in the Stone Age.
re: squatting, that used to happen in the form of using a mining claim on government land and some theater to acquire land for non-mining purposes. They changed the laws a few decades ago to curtail that kind of abuse so it isn't really a thing anymore. Claims that you effectively abandon have a cost in that they have to be defended against encroachment or you can lose them to an encroacher.
This seems like a good law that encourages companies to explore for natural resources. The author of the article seems to think that companies should get environmental review before they even prospect for resources. I disagree and think that prospecting should be fairly easy for companies, with greater plans needed to actually do the extraction.
But they take the minerals for free. Why not make them pay for the resources they’re exploiting? Instead, the American public and native reservations get nothing, except they lose access and use of that land. That should be remunerated somehow.
I don't think the public gets nothing, we'll also get to fund cleanup and remediation once the mines are no longer profitable.
You mean like the 40k+ (HARD ESTIMATE) abandoned mines are have strewn all over the US right now? The ones that pose both environmental and human health dangers every second they exist?
I’m glad you’re aware, but I think few people are actually aware of just how much actual bullshit mining companies get away with. They’re basically consequence free by default.
I’m glad you’re aware, but I think few people are actually aware of just how much actual bullshit mining companies get away with. They’re basically consequence free by default.
> few people are actually aware of just how much actual bullshit mining companies get away with. They’re basically consequence free by default.
Have you worked at a mine in USA in the past four decades? Pollution controls in all industries improve over time. Piston aircraft still use leaded fuel. Humanity is a process of progression and innovation.
Have you worked at a mine in USA in the past four decades? Pollution controls in all industries improve over time. Piston aircraft still use leaded fuel. Humanity is a process of progression and innovation.
Because they are citizens of the country, not sharecroppers. Why should the federal government be in the business of extracting all possible rent? I didn't vote for that.
We do, however, have equal protection, and you are welcome to go find those resources for yourself.
We do, however, have equal protection, and you are welcome to go find those resources for yourself.
Nobody alive today “voted” for that, but put it on a ballot and I’m willing to bet a few people would have opinions.
There are broadly two places a corporation’s money goes: expenses and profits. Expenses are either paid directly to individuals as income, or to other companies, where the money still ends up as either expenses or profits. There’s also the fact that everything a corporation sells is generally considered valuable enough by someone else to be a good deal at that price, so all the revenue they generate also represents value being provided to their counterparty.
In economics there is a thing called deadweight loss, which is the value lost when some kind of policy (like an inefficient tax) distorts the quantity supplied:quantity demanded relationship. When you tax only income and profits, you generally avoid deadweight loss because you shift the taxation to be “after” the supply:demand has already been determined; by allowing for expenses paid to other companies to be deducted, value isn’t taxed twice because ultimately that money always ends up as someone else’s income or profits. If you’re purely interested in more taxes to capture value for the government more efficiently (and not as a vice or pigouvian tax) instituting more taxes introduces double taxation that shifts the tax before the transaction and introduced deadweight loss which lowers overall output and value generated.
If you do mean to suggest the tax should be Pigouvian, that kind of already exists. Corporations have to pay a lot of the costs for compliance and remediation. I’m pretty sure to avoid all the issues of the past, companies have to put a bunch of money/assets in escrow so if they fuck up the government doesn’t get stuck with the bill. It is true though that all taxpayers pay for eg the EPA and the fees paid by corporations generally don’t cover the full environment cost; generally this means the externalities of production aren’t being accurately priced and it would be better to shift those externalities into the companies.
But those kinds of pigouvian taxes have a major flaw in that we live in a global market economy, so without full international cooperation they just make your local industry uncompetitive and shift production to places with less regulations. Also, even though natural resource extraction generates some profits for private individuals, we generally all benefit from it. So it’s not too bad to tax some of the environmental compliance costs in a non-pigouvian manner.
In economics there is a thing called deadweight loss, which is the value lost when some kind of policy (like an inefficient tax) distorts the quantity supplied:quantity demanded relationship. When you tax only income and profits, you generally avoid deadweight loss because you shift the taxation to be “after” the supply:demand has already been determined; by allowing for expenses paid to other companies to be deducted, value isn’t taxed twice because ultimately that money always ends up as someone else’s income or profits. If you’re purely interested in more taxes to capture value for the government more efficiently (and not as a vice or pigouvian tax) instituting more taxes introduces double taxation that shifts the tax before the transaction and introduced deadweight loss which lowers overall output and value generated.
If you do mean to suggest the tax should be Pigouvian, that kind of already exists. Corporations have to pay a lot of the costs for compliance and remediation. I’m pretty sure to avoid all the issues of the past, companies have to put a bunch of money/assets in escrow so if they fuck up the government doesn’t get stuck with the bill. It is true though that all taxpayers pay for eg the EPA and the fees paid by corporations generally don’t cover the full environment cost; generally this means the externalities of production aren’t being accurately priced and it would be better to shift those externalities into the companies.
But those kinds of pigouvian taxes have a major flaw in that we live in a global market economy, so without full international cooperation they just make your local industry uncompetitive and shift production to places with less regulations. Also, even though natural resource extraction generates some profits for private individuals, we generally all benefit from it. So it’s not too bad to tax some of the environmental compliance costs in a non-pigouvian manner.
Can royalties put on mineral extraction on public land be considered taxes in this regard, though? If the same minerals were found on privately owned land, the land owner would ask for a piece of the proceeds to allow mining.
Exploiting is a weasel word. They're making the useful minerals useable, which benefits the public more than leaving them in the ground. The reservations get what they're entitled to, which is nothing.
Another weasel word is “benefits the public”, which completely ignores the very few non-public entities that benefit _much more_ than the public when these resources are mined.
No. They can pay and they should pay. Don’t worry: they’ll be fine.
No. They can pay and they should pay. Don’t worry: they’ll be fine.
The minerals are now useful but the cost is fucking up the land around a uranium mine, which is pretty horrible. For that, they get nothing and should be happy? Get real. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard today.
> Exploiting is a weasel word. They're making the useful minerals useable, which benefits the public more than leaving them in the ground.
Well put. However, with the additional stipulation that it is sometimes useful to leave minerals in the ground if the company that extracts them does not make an unpaid/ unremediated toxic enviromental mess when extracting them.
> The reservations get what they're entitled to, which is nothing.
Depends on who "owns" the land. If the land is owned by the federal government then the reseservations aren't technically owed anything. However, was the land taken from the reservations by force in the past ? If so, then 0% share is highly objectionable. Would you like it I came to you, forcibly took away your assets, made profit from them and then claimed that I didn't owe you anything because it wasn't yours anymore ?
Now, it is fully possible that these federal lands were virgin in the past so then the the federal government does not owe anything extra to any special group of citizens.
TL;DR We must go into the history of the land. Depending on the history of the land, local communities/reservations _may_ deserve a small formal share in the profits of the mining company.
In any case, the government must work for the betterment of all its residents and citizens whether in cities, farms or mining areas. Mining areas deserve special care because they house some of the historically most poor and opressed citizens.
Well put. However, with the additional stipulation that it is sometimes useful to leave minerals in the ground if the company that extracts them does not make an unpaid/ unremediated toxic enviromental mess when extracting them.
> The reservations get what they're entitled to, which is nothing.
Depends on who "owns" the land. If the land is owned by the federal government then the reseservations aren't technically owed anything. However, was the land taken from the reservations by force in the past ? If so, then 0% share is highly objectionable. Would you like it I came to you, forcibly took away your assets, made profit from them and then claimed that I didn't owe you anything because it wasn't yours anymore ?
Now, it is fully possible that these federal lands were virgin in the past so then the the federal government does not owe anything extra to any special group of citizens.
TL;DR We must go into the history of the land. Depending on the history of the land, local communities/reservations _may_ deserve a small formal share in the profits of the mining company.
In any case, the government must work for the betterment of all its residents and citizens whether in cities, farms or mining areas. Mining areas deserve special care because they house some of the historically most poor and opressed citizens.
>uranium and other minerals belonging to all Americans out of the ground, without paying a cent in royalties.
Couldn't you easily (try to) argue this for essentially any industry? The 'royalties' would be the taxes (both on the corporation and the future employees) that would be generated. As the writer noted themselves, they don't even own the land, they're essentially mining it for the US government.
Couldn't you easily (try to) argue this for essentially any industry? The 'royalties' would be the taxes (both on the corporation and the future employees) that would be generated. As the writer noted themselves, they don't even own the land, they're essentially mining it for the US government.
The US Government would get a small NSR (Net Smelter Return) from the Canadian company listed on the Toronto TSX mineral exchange.
The bulk of the extracted material (and it's monetary value) need not go to the US Government or benefit in any way other US citizens (save those that work there).
With a modern mine, it could conceivably be largely tele-remote .. such as the proposed plans by Rio Tinto for the $64 billion Resolution Copper project.
Very few workers on site, potentially a fully FiFo operation (Fly in | Fly out) etc.
The bulk of the extracted material (and it's monetary value) need not go to the US Government or benefit in any way other US citizens (save those that work there).
With a modern mine, it could conceivably be largely tele-remote .. such as the proposed plans by Rio Tinto for the $64 billion Resolution Copper project.
Very few workers on site, potentially a fully FiFo operation (Fly in | Fly out) etc.
Fly in fly out is used to bring in contractors when local staff don't have skills or don't want to work. Australian coal couldn't entice local workers, so haul trucks and locomotives were automated. Automation also reduces risk of operator injury if people are not there. But somebody fixes the machines.
Australian iron ore (and I'd assume coal) automated as the projected savings were there, pay less for on site workers, concentrate remote operators, and have less waer and tear on expensive machines (Haul trucks get banged around hard by certain groups of go hard workers).
The machines get maintained and fixed, but on many Australian mine sites that's also done by FiFo workers on roster.
The machines get maintained and fixed, but on many Australian mine sites that's also done by FiFo workers on roster.
> Couldn't you easily (try to) argue this for essentially any industry?
Yes you can and some do. Harvest trees on national forest land? Permit required. Grazing cattle on BLM land? Gotta pay grazing fees.
Of course, those fees haven't been increased in decades. In the case of grazing fees, the fee is lower than in 1981. https://www.hcn.org/articles/south-public-lands-whats-gettin...
I see another comment asserting that low fees ensure the system "doesn't discriminate against small businesses and even individuals", but ignores the true barriers to entry, meaning that in practice the only folks who pay these fees are companies for which the expense amounts to proverbial pocket change. Sure, I could file a mining claim for $225 and afford the $165/annually, pretty much as long as I live. Would I ever be able to do anything with my claim? Unlikely. Best I could hope for is that a global mining conglomerate would offer to buy it off me.
Yes you can and some do. Harvest trees on national forest land? Permit required. Grazing cattle on BLM land? Gotta pay grazing fees.
Of course, those fees haven't been increased in decades. In the case of grazing fees, the fee is lower than in 1981. https://www.hcn.org/articles/south-public-lands-whats-gettin...
I see another comment asserting that low fees ensure the system "doesn't discriminate against small businesses and even individuals", but ignores the true barriers to entry, meaning that in practice the only folks who pay these fees are companies for which the expense amounts to proverbial pocket change. Sure, I could file a mining claim for $225 and afford the $165/annually, pretty much as long as I live. Would I ever be able to do anything with my claim? Unlikely. Best I could hope for is that a global mining conglomerate would offer to buy it off me.
The limiter on those grazing fees is water availability and water rights, which are usually owned by private parties or the State. Any grazing land without water isn't worth much and leasing water rights isn't that cheap.
>Couldn't you easily (try to) argue this for essentially any industry?
How so? Are you saying you could easily argue that the US owns the work force? Or the private land?
Very few other industries take place on public land, the only other one I can think of is cattle grazing and they make a huge deal out of charging them for the use.
How so? Are you saying you could easily argue that the US owns the work force? Or the private land?
Very few other industries take place on public land, the only other one I can think of is cattle grazing and they make a huge deal out of charging them for the use.
I think the previous comment is saying that Tax itself is the "royalty" or cut that the government (people) get from the mining operations. If they build a successful operation they will have to pay taxes and will generate local jobs as well, all benefiting the local people and their government. I tend to agree with this, and any added "royalty" is essentially another tax or fee that will discourage investment in that local area.
What has happened here and continues is straight forward.
Somebody stakes a claim on US land and once they mine they pay a relatively small NSR fee to the government and keep everything else, less their extraction costs.
If your local community has, say, $64 billion in copper within its boundaries, a Canadian or Australian company can pay 1.5% of that value to the US government and take the rest.
Your local community gets nothing, save the chance to lodge an environmental or other protest.
Maybe some jobs, but it's not guarenteed.
Somebody stakes a claim on US land and once they mine they pay a relatively small NSR fee to the government and keep everything else, less their extraction costs.
If your local community has, say, $64 billion in copper within its boundaries, a Canadian or Australian company can pay 1.5% of that value to the US government and take the rest.
Your local community gets nothing, save the chance to lodge an environmental or other protest.
Maybe some jobs, but it's not guarenteed.
I'm curious why the local community gets nothing. Don't they need lodging and food and amenities? And 1.5% of $64 billion is several hundred million dollars, which goes to the government who then spends it on their employees and various services, which then continue on and make up a whole economy. No?
For background, I was in global geophysical exploration for decades and worked on:
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/met...
before it was sold on to the US Standard & Poor.
In general, globally, pre mine arrival local communities get a crapshoot.
They might get jobs, they'll usually get environmental issues, they often get a dedicated "company town" built, they may or may not see money from miners spill over into their community.
They might see their town bulldozed and moved on, they might get flooded with "off peak" miners gambling, chasing women, starting fights.
Sometimes they'll get jobs, and money - but not always. Mining companies tend to feed and house their own workers on many mining projects.
1.5% of $64 billion is not 98.5% is it?
You may notice I use neutral language and the question you might like to ask yourself is why might your local community give away 98.5% of $64 billion to people who were allowed to hammer four sticks in the ground and file some paperwork.
Personally I'm for it, as an Australian I have shares in various transnational proposed mining projects and will get a good return from Australian mining companies extracting resources from US soil with little return to US citizens.
Rio Tinto is certainly talking up the benefits of this to local communities:
https://resolutioncopper.com/cultural-heritage/
https://resolutioncopper.com/land-exchange/
and they're absolutely got a track record in respecting cultural heritage ( /s ):
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/26/rio-t...
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/met...
before it was sold on to the US Standard & Poor.
In general, globally, pre mine arrival local communities get a crapshoot.
They might get jobs, they'll usually get environmental issues, they often get a dedicated "company town" built, they may or may not see money from miners spill over into their community.
They might see their town bulldozed and moved on, they might get flooded with "off peak" miners gambling, chasing women, starting fights.
Sometimes they'll get jobs, and money - but not always. Mining companies tend to feed and house their own workers on many mining projects.
1.5% of $64 billion is not 98.5% is it?
You may notice I use neutral language and the question you might like to ask yourself is why might your local community give away 98.5% of $64 billion to people who were allowed to hammer four sticks in the ground and file some paperwork.
Personally I'm for it, as an Australian I have shares in various transnational proposed mining projects and will get a good return from Australian mining companies extracting resources from US soil with little return to US citizens.
Rio Tinto is certainly talking up the benefits of this to local communities:
https://resolutioncopper.com/cultural-heritage/
https://resolutioncopper.com/land-exchange/
and they're absolutely got a track record in respecting cultural heritage ( /s ):
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/26/rio-t...
You comment was intruiging.
> In general, globally, pre mine arrival local communities get a crapshoot.
Is your comment relating only to the exploring for minerals phase ? Or are you talking about when the mine is actually built.
Generally speaking, royalties (in the case of oil for instance) go to the federal government, still bypassing the local community.
So what is the solution: small royalties that go directly to the mining communities ? Ability for the local community to tax the company ?
> your local community give away 98.5% of $64 billion to people who were allowed to hammer four sticks in the ground and file some paperwork.
These lands are owned by the federal government and not the local community. So the local community is not "giving away" these lands to anyone. Of course, the government has a responsibility to give back a portion of the benefits that are accruing to it (via taxes on profits etc.) to the local communities that live near the mines.
> In general, globally, pre mine arrival local communities get a crapshoot.
Is your comment relating only to the exploring for minerals phase ? Or are you talking about when the mine is actually built.
Generally speaking, royalties (in the case of oil for instance) go to the federal government, still bypassing the local community.
So what is the solution: small royalties that go directly to the mining communities ? Ability for the local community to tax the company ?
> your local community give away 98.5% of $64 billion to people who were allowed to hammer four sticks in the ground and file some paperwork.
These lands are owned by the federal government and not the local community. So the local community is not "giving away" these lands to anyone. Of course, the government has a responsibility to give back a portion of the benefits that are accruing to it (via taxes on profits etc.) to the local communities that live near the mines.
> In general, globally, pre mine arrival local communities
That was poorly phrased, I wanted to distinguish between communities local to mines from before the mine was established as opposed to communities established after a mine arrives.
Long term locals can often get fully sidelined, especially indigenuous and or otherwise minority communities.
> These lands are owned by the federal government and not the local community.
Globally?
I suspect things vary in detail as you travel about the world. Still, in the case of a Federal government that represents the entire population of a country it might be asked why that body is essentially giving away a resource within the territory of the people it represents for very little in return.
That was poorly phrased, I wanted to distinguish between communities local to mines from before the mine was established as opposed to communities established after a mine arrives.
Long term locals can often get fully sidelined, especially indigenuous and or otherwise minority communities.
> These lands are owned by the federal government and not the local community.
Globally?
I suspect things vary in detail as you travel about the world. Still, in the case of a Federal government that represents the entire population of a country it might be asked why that body is essentially giving away a resource within the territory of the people it represents for very little in return.
Thank you that was enlightening. Yeah for some reason the US doesn't like to restrictions on so called capitalism, so corporations draining communities their resources are nothing new. That it's international is a thing, but eg Walmart sucks money out of communities in much the same way. Keeping it in country is just the way of it.
Normally they would need to buy the land, something that would cost far more than $~100 a year. Currently it seems like a subsidy for a profitable industry with a rather exploitative history.
This can get pretty complicated. Mineral rights have priority over basic use rights (like living there), and they are often titled separately to different parties. Exploration on the property requires permission from the person with the use rights but there are ways to circumvent that (e.g. from adjacent parcels). Even if you own the mineral rights on your land, you have to actively defend them from encroachment or you can effectively lose them.
In practice everyone will usually try to come to terms to avoid the legal headaches but if you don't own the mineral rights you are negotiating from weak position when this happens.
In practice everyone will usually try to come to terms to avoid the legal headaches but if you don't own the mineral rights you are negotiating from weak position when this happens.
You dont own mineral rights on your property unless it is a patented claim. However, if somebody wanted to stake a claim on your property they would need to ask permission to explore.
> the only other one I can think of is cattle grazing and they make a huge deal out of charging them for the use.
Cattle grazing fees are less now than they were in 1981. Not "less after inflation", just less. It's $1.35 for 2023, while in 1981 it was $2.31. https://www.hcn.org/articles/south-public-lands-whats-gettin...
There are still extremists who refuse to even pay that nominal amount https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
Also harvesting trees in National Forests.
Cattle grazing fees are less now than they were in 1981. Not "less after inflation", just less. It's $1.35 for 2023, while in 1981 it was $2.31. https://www.hcn.org/articles/south-public-lands-whats-gettin...
There are still extremists who refuse to even pay that nominal amount https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
Also harvesting trees in National Forests.
We need more laws that don't change fundamentally in 151 years, because they are fundamental.
[deleted]
Tell me one thing that hasn’t changed in 151 years that isn’t outlined in the bill of rights.
Water rights are a mess in many places too. Where I live in a fairly dry bit of Oregon, a lot of the senior water rights go to hobby farms that don't produce much, while real agriculture further downstream struggles to get enough water.
The anti-mining rhetoric really needs to stop. Yes, 100 years ago miners took what they wanted and left a mess. Today, the process is much different. The mining companies rebuild everything and plant trees - you wouldn't even know there was a mine there. We need more mining in the US.
I've got to call bullshit—I can't imagine a for-profit company doing anything out of the kindness of their heart. Planting a few trees for the sake of PR is not the same as responsible stewardship.
Unless, of course, you have evidence you are able to furnish.
Unless, of course, you have evidence you are able to furnish.
It's not out of the goodness of their hearts - it's law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_reclamation
You bring up a good point. While the intentions are companies are hard to gauge, and likely diverse across the set of all for-profit corporations, it's important to remember that without them we'd conceivably be living in a much less developed society with a much lower standard of living.
Admittedly, our environment would be largely unspoiled if this were the case.
This raises an interesting point about what people really want. Given the choice, would most people opt to live in an economically backward but pristine wilderness, or not?
Such an environment might lack modern conveniences like electricity, sophisticated city services, piped water and sewerage, but may possess an abundance of natural riches, like fresh air, clean water, and a beautiful landscape that was unscarred and intact.
I think many people would choose that life. I know I would, at least for a while. But many are also probably unfamiliar with the hardships of doing so, which may prove a decisive challenge for people and lead to them returning to more 'advanced' way of life.
It could also be argued that the seeming dichotomy presented above represents an oversimplification of the reality, and that in general the choice would not be between such extremes.
An optimistic take might also consider that ideally we don't need to choose, we can bring sustainable technologies with us to the wilderness, or we can make our existence in advanced cities environmentally friendly.
It's important to remember that people often choose to migrate from less developed regions to more developed ones, primarily for the economic opportunities they believe are available to them and their loved ones there. It might be hard to argue that this is a bad thing, particularly as our concepts of ethics and morality are often based in notions of access to opportunity, sanitary conditions, and shelter.
The interaction between humanity and the environment comprises complex dynamics involving seemingly competing considerations. It's crucial to consider the ethical intersection of good of the environment, and the good of the people.
Economics and the environment interact in complex ways: we depend on the health of the environment for our economic growth, but often end up harming it in the process, endangering ecosystems and ourselves. Yet without that growth we would be without many things that people seem to prefer.
Admittedly, our environment would be largely unspoiled if this were the case.
This raises an interesting point about what people really want. Given the choice, would most people opt to live in an economically backward but pristine wilderness, or not?
Such an environment might lack modern conveniences like electricity, sophisticated city services, piped water and sewerage, but may possess an abundance of natural riches, like fresh air, clean water, and a beautiful landscape that was unscarred and intact.
I think many people would choose that life. I know I would, at least for a while. But many are also probably unfamiliar with the hardships of doing so, which may prove a decisive challenge for people and lead to them returning to more 'advanced' way of life.
It could also be argued that the seeming dichotomy presented above represents an oversimplification of the reality, and that in general the choice would not be between such extremes.
An optimistic take might also consider that ideally we don't need to choose, we can bring sustainable technologies with us to the wilderness, or we can make our existence in advanced cities environmentally friendly.
It's important to remember that people often choose to migrate from less developed regions to more developed ones, primarily for the economic opportunities they believe are available to them and their loved ones there. It might be hard to argue that this is a bad thing, particularly as our concepts of ethics and morality are often based in notions of access to opportunity, sanitary conditions, and shelter.
The interaction between humanity and the environment comprises complex dynamics involving seemingly competing considerations. It's crucial to consider the ethical intersection of good of the environment, and the good of the people.
Economics and the environment interact in complex ways: we depend on the health of the environment for our economic growth, but often end up harming it in the process, endangering ecosystems and ourselves. Yet without that growth we would be without many things that people seem to prefer.
Having done executive level consulting for two of the biggest mining operations in the world, it's my anecdotal observations that the execs at those companies have some of the lowest/worst ethics I have ever seen in my 20+ years of work.
To put it into context, I have worked with lawmakers / politicians, lobbyists, fortune 100 boards / exec teams and porn companies. By far the worst human beings I have ever encountered in my life (who weren't like, legitimately criminals, at trial) were the people in the mining industry.
To put it into context, I have worked with lawmakers / politicians, lobbyists, fortune 100 boards / exec teams and porn companies. By far the worst human beings I have ever encountered in my life (who weren't like, legitimately criminals, at trial) were the people in the mining industry.
The Vogons from Down Under have had their wikipedia profiles scrubbed back hard, there's barely a hint of just how truly despicable they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Palmer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Rinehart
Clive buying Adolf Hitler's Mercedes-Benz 770, and Gina's poetry might give the astute reader a hint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Palmer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Rinehart
Clive buying Adolf Hitler's Mercedes-Benz 770, and Gina's poetry might give the astute reader a hint.
"you wouldn't even know there was a mine there"
https://maps.app.goo.gl/3U7pKb2oUPRnp4Qr5
https://maps.app.goo.gl/3U7pKb2oUPRnp4Qr5
Why'd you post a picture of a currently operating mine in response to the parent's point?
Are there no examples of mines that have recently finished the reclamation stage with noticeable environmental impact remaining?
Are there no examples of mines that have recently finished the reclamation stage with noticeable environmental impact remaining?
I look forward to them telling me how they're going to rehab a mountain that doesn't exist anymore, or a pit that's several hundred feet deep.
There are plenty of resources available that show reclamation. Here's one - https://mineralseducationcoalition.org/mining-minerals-infor...
I'm sure the MEC is a totally independent non-profit fully divorced from the mining companies themselves and thus the information is to be 100% trusted.
[deleted]
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the Climax Mine from the late 1800s?
It is the Climax mine. No it's not from the 1800s, and it's still in operation. It has absolutely demolished that section of the mountain range.
If we don't want to import minerals from other countries (some hostile), then we will mine it here. Specifically for Climax Moly, their product contributed to WWII success.
Then reclamation hasn't started.
You're never going to reclaim it. The water that flows down from that pass will be poisoned by heavy metal indefinitely.
There's a cost to mining, it's not cheap.
There's a cost to mining, it's not cheap.
I feel like you are moving goalposts here. I can only find information around old mines - all new/operational mines are subject to environmental oversight. Are you saying that operational mines are leaking heavy metal into drinking water?
I am saying that for this mine to exist, you need now - and IN PERPETUITY - treat the water that flows down hill.
To me, that is in no way shape or form: "reclaimed".
To me, that is in no way shape or form: "reclaimed".
That is not the definition of 'reclaimed' (I think you meant reclamation) - you are talking about environmental oversight. Do you think mines today are missing that in the US?
>That is not the definition of 'reclaimed' (I think you meant reclamation)
Reclamation is the noun form of the verb to reclaim.
Do you think mines today are missing that in the US?
I think the cost of mining is a long-tail problem. Just throwing some top soil over a mine isn't solving many of the problems a mine introduces. One of the examples I'm giving is heavy metal pollution of important-to-human water ways.
In general, mines in the US have a very piss poor track record of dealing with long term environmental issues. I think one be a fool for believing the greenwashing marketing of a huge multi-national mining company, or their honest intent to put the land back in a state - or better - than what it was. That is a fantasy. As they reap enormous profits from the mining, I would want you think of who is actually bearing that cost.
Reclamation is the noun form of the verb to reclaim.
Do you think mines today are missing that in the US?
I think the cost of mining is a long-tail problem. Just throwing some top soil over a mine isn't solving many of the problems a mine introduces. One of the examples I'm giving is heavy metal pollution of important-to-human water ways.
In general, mines in the US have a very piss poor track record of dealing with long term environmental issues. I think one be a fool for believing the greenwashing marketing of a huge multi-national mining company, or their honest intent to put the land back in a state - or better - than what it was. That is a fantasy. As they reap enormous profits from the mining, I would want you think of who is actually bearing that cost.
Mining companies have to solve the problem of run-off as part of the Clean Water Act[1]. Reclamation is the process of 'fixing' the landscape. There are countless benefits from doing this including carbon storage[2].
"mines in the US have a very piss poor track record of dealing with long term environmental issues" - you are conflating old, abandoned mines with current mines. Current mining processes deal with everything you've listed.
We need mining. We should be mining in the US for a variety of reasons. If that can be done responsibly, why wouldn't you want that?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_reclamation
"mines in the US have a very piss poor track record of dealing with long term environmental issues" - you are conflating old, abandoned mines with current mines. Current mining processes deal with everything you've listed.
We need mining. We should be mining in the US for a variety of reasons. If that can be done responsibly, why wouldn't you want that?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_reclamation
The article states that there’s no environmental oversight during exploration because of that law.
This article uses pre-regulation examples to make a point that does not apply to modern day mining operations.
"Reclamation of mineral development was not a requirement under the Mining Law when enacted 150 years ago. Pursuant to FLPMA, the BLM issued regulations in 1981, which were amended in 2001 and require notices and plans of operation to include detailed reclamation plans. These regulations also require operators to provide financial guarantees covering the full cost to reclaim mining operations. Additionally, the BLM’s regulations allow the agency to require an operator to establish a trust fund or other funding mechanism to ensure the continuation of long-term treatment to achieve water quality standards and for other long-term, post mining reclamation and maintenance requirements after a mine is closed. These regulations provide the BLM with a mechanism to provide for protection of the environment after mining has concluded. In response to Government Accountability Office recommendations, BLM implemented a tracking system under which BLM certifies each fiscal year that the reclamation cost estimates for proposed and operating mines have been reviewed and are sufficient to cover the cost of reclamation. Currently, the BLM holds financial guarantees of $3.3 billion which is held to fund the costs of reclamation of mining operations on BLM-managed public lands. Furthermore, the BLM continuously reviews reclamation bonding requirements." https://www.blm.gov/congressional-testimony/reforming-mining...
"Reclamation of mineral development was not a requirement under the Mining Law when enacted 150 years ago. Pursuant to FLPMA, the BLM issued regulations in 1981, which were amended in 2001 and require notices and plans of operation to include detailed reclamation plans. These regulations also require operators to provide financial guarantees covering the full cost to reclaim mining operations. Additionally, the BLM’s regulations allow the agency to require an operator to establish a trust fund or other funding mechanism to ensure the continuation of long-term treatment to achieve water quality standards and for other long-term, post mining reclamation and maintenance requirements after a mine is closed. These regulations provide the BLM with a mechanism to provide for protection of the environment after mining has concluded. In response to Government Accountability Office recommendations, BLM implemented a tracking system under which BLM certifies each fiscal year that the reclamation cost estimates for proposed and operating mines have been reviewed and are sufficient to cover the cost of reclamation. Currently, the BLM holds financial guarantees of $3.3 billion which is held to fund the costs of reclamation of mining operations on BLM-managed public lands. Furthermore, the BLM continuously reviews reclamation bonding requirements." https://www.blm.gov/congressional-testimony/reforming-mining...
"Exploration" is just walking around and taking samples. The article says at the point they want to actually open a mine they have to get environmental approval.
[deleted]
Mining is an important industry. It has deeply shaped California, from the Gold Rush days in San Francisco to today's extraction of tech-essential minerals like lithium. While we can criticize parts of the industry, and lots of what happened in the past, we can't ignore its contributions to innovation and progress.
While this article implies that mining under this law is the wild west, its much more complex. Transitioning from a claim to an actual mining operation (digging and extracting minerals) involves more oversight than the staking process (which is antiquated), including environmental reviews and other regulatory hurdles.
A trust fund, containing billions of dollars paid for by these miners, is set up to support the cleanup of mining areas. The notion that today's mining operations can just neglect their obligations is mistaken. While reform is needed it's not accurate for this article to use pre-regulation abandoned mines as a benchmark for mines established post the 1981 regulations or the stricter 2001 standards set by the Bureau of Land Management.
While this article implies that mining under this law is the wild west, its much more complex. Transitioning from a claim to an actual mining operation (digging and extracting minerals) involves more oversight than the staking process (which is antiquated), including environmental reviews and other regulatory hurdles.
A trust fund, containing billions of dollars paid for by these miners, is set up to support the cleanup of mining areas. The notion that today's mining operations can just neglect their obligations is mistaken. While reform is needed it's not accurate for this article to use pre-regulation abandoned mines as a benchmark for mines established post the 1981 regulations or the stricter 2001 standards set by the Bureau of Land Management.
Riches of America can be traced back to some Europeans getting lot of land by killing all the natives and then getting slaves as cheap labour.
Mining in the US West wasn’t done by slave labor.
And conquest coupled with slaving their rivals is what powered most indigenous tribes, too! In fact, essentially every human society of the time or before.
Weird that outrage is selectively applied.
And conquest coupled with slaving their rivals is what powered most indigenous tribes, too! In fact, essentially every human society of the time or before.
Weird that outrage is selectively applied.
I was replying to original comment claiming that people commenting out here are hypocritical because they all have benefitted from the mining. My comment implies that not all things that our ancestors do that have made our life what it is today are not ethical/legal today.
[deleted]
thank you for your input chatgpt
Unmitigated bullshit in this comment. All current and past evidence of mining practices is a neon trail of hazard and destruction. It’s not even worth it to put up references because even a 5 second cursory fact check shows otherwise.
What part? It would be better if you listed specifics rather than generalizations. I'm open to debate anything I posted.
[deleted]
The above fees only address the provisional stake holding, and environmental permits must be acquired before any mining commences. While the requirements to obtain EPA permission could be seen as nullifying any advantages to small business from the low prospecting fees, it's also likely that once a prospector finds minerals they could also obtain partners or funding which would help share the cost of any additional permits required.
While it's true that the state does not benefit financially from mineral extraction in the form of royalties, in many cases states are able to collect taxes from the operations of businesses involved in the mining, processing and sale of minerals, as other commenters point out.
It's conceivable that an additional layer of tariffs in the form of royalties may make mining operations more difficult for small businesses and individuals, undermining (pun intended) the intended benefits of the low barriers to entry for prospecting.
It is also possible to make a connection with how large incumbent companies often lobby for more regulations. While a seeming paradox, this behavior actually helps protect their business by introducing additional barriers to entry that help keep out startups and smaller newcomers. These added costs, while affordable for the largest of companies, are often prohibitively expensive and burdensome for would-be competitors.
This shows a paradox: regulations meant to ensure fair business and collective good can sometimes just cement monopolies.