Mining companies paying 19th century prices (Bushco 155 acres for $900)

[truthpusher]

http://www.lajuntatribunedemocrat.com/articles/2005/10/17/local_news/news04.txt

Mining companies still paying 19th century prices
----------------
CRESTED BUTTE, Colo. (AP) - The ruddy slopes of 12,392-foot Mount Emmons loom over this town, drawing hikers, backcountry skiers and snowshoers. But to residents such as Jim Starr, they also stand for what is wrong with the nation's antiquated mining laws.

Those laws allowed the Bush administration to sell 155 acres of public land on the “Red Lady” to a mining company for less than $900. The land has deposits of molybdenum, a gray metal used to make steel, alloys and lubricants.

“It's a huge threat. If anyone did put a mine in there, it's hard to imagine that it would not destroy this area,” said Starr, a lawyer and Democratic chairman of Gunnison County's board of commissioners.

The sale was made possible by an 1872 mining law that lets the government sell, for just $2.50 or $5 an acre, public lands that contain minerals. This land sale, known as a patent, gives companies absolute title to the property.

(snip)

complete story: http://www.lajuntatribunedemocrat.com/articles/2005/10/17/local_news/news04.txt

[Patchuli]

1. I don't understand

how they can sell "public land" at all? Does that not mean that it is OUR land?

[northzax]

4. the land isn't sold

the mineral rights are leased. Basically, if you can demonstrate that there is a commercially viable mineral deposit on public land (that isn't being used for another purpose, like a national park) then you can file a 'patent' on those rights for as little as five dollars an acre. that does not confer ownership of the land, simply the right to remove the particular mineral from under that land. when you are done, control of the land reverts to the government.

this is not, in principle, a bad idea. After all, most of the land in the West is owned by the federal government, and frankly, most of it has no value beyond simply being land and aesthetic value (which is, of course, a value) there needs to be some way to extract mineral resources from public land (gold, silver, etc) since it's all on public land. What is abhorrent is that there is no scaling on the prices, to update them to modern values, or (the worst part) no royalties paid to the people for the extracted resource.

[niallmac]

7. One more problem. These people aren't just building park benches.

Gold mining can involve cyanide pools next to THE SALMON RIVER :mad:
Now I know what your thinking. "It's poor country up there. How are people to make a living?"
Oh, I don't know. Should we get together and build a WalMart? Some land in America has to be protected for it's beauty and it's unspoiled spirituality that it provides free of charge to anyone who simply pulls to the side of the road and turns off the engine.

Somewhere tonight a river flows in the Primitive Area in Idaho and there are no humans there to spill cyanide into it or dam it up or otherwise 'improve it.' The river flows for all creatures.
Can't we have one place that is untouchable? I want my kids and their kids to have the opportunity to go there and sit and listen and watch and imagine. It's for all of us.

[northzax]

11. I actually have worked on some of this

from the environmental side, and yes, there are protected places, and there are places that should be protected, but on the other hand, there is a need for mineral resources (where does all that gold, copper, molybdenum and silicon in your computer come from, after all?) increasing royalty payments would, at the very least, provide funds for remediation.

[niallmac]

15. I just hope the boundaries of this necessary

extraction are clearly defined. The business next to Yellowstone Park makes me think we really have no protected areas. Eventually, a dollar trumps an intangible every time.

[The Roux Comes First]

17. Don't Drink the Water

To make matters worse, recent history has featured gutting of our environmental laws (e.g. ongoing failure to reauthorize SuperFund and resume taxing industry to reestablish a meaningful "kitty" to cover the government cost of cleanup). Thus the charming mine owners are getting access to minerals on our lands dirt-cheap and are doing so with fair confidence that they can pollute freely.

The mining companies in the Coeur d'Alene valley are a terrific example. They are trying every scuzzy trick in the book to avoid paying more than a fraction of the cost of the cleanup necessary to remediate the damage caused by the sloppy practices that previously gained them billions of dollars in profit.

Unfortunately the good stories about the mining industry were far outnumbered by the bad back when we had a regulatory structure in place to keep them honest. It's a lot worse now.

[sandnsea]

20. They're expanding to Alaska

Somebody asked for help in stopping this Coeur Alaska mining project a while back, they're out of Coeur d'Alene. I don't know what's happened, but it's a real shame.



"For the first time in U.S. history, the federal government has issued a permit that would allow a gold mining company to dump its chemically processed mine waste into a pristine lake, killing everything in the lake. If allowed to proceed, the company would dump 4.5 million tons of toxic waste into Lower Slate Lake, a pristine body of water above Berners Bay, north of Juneau."

http://www.akcenter.org/publiclands/kensington.htmlning

[harpboy_ak]

22. wrong! a patent grants CLEAR TITLE

The mineral rights are *not* leased (you're confusing minerals with oil and gas, where the rights are usually leased).

The Feds even say so at http://www.blm.gov/nhp/300/wo320/minlaw.htm

"The General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 USC 29 and 43 CFR 3860, provides the successful mining claimant the right to patent (acquire absolute title to the land) mining claims or sites if they meet the statutory requirements."

It is a horribly outdated law, with horribly outdated rates and charges. Most important, it does not contain any requirement for reclamation or neutralization of the site once extraction ceases.

The one saving grace is that it's harder these days to patent claims, which do not need to be patented to be mined, by the way. Keeping a claim active only requires a minimal amount of annual labor or expenditure, but meeting the other statutory requirements for a patent has become more difficult.

The town where I live is mostly made up of old mining claims that were patented when it was easy to do so, but so little mineral value was found that the "mill site" land was subdivided since the owner had clear title.

[northzax]

2. it's not the administration, it's the law of the land

the mineral policy act of 1872 remains in effect, with no indexing of prices to modern values. This one isn't actually the Bushies' fault, it's the fault of congress, and the out-sized power of small population mountain state senators.

[CottonBear]

3. Damn. Crappy residential property in the red county where I work costs

up to $30,000 per acre. That's with NO house or utilities. :(

[central scrutinizer]

5. next on the agenda

19th century wages and working standards.

[applegrove]

6. That is interesting - especially for Canadian Softwood lumber that

has been penalized with tariff penalities because the "stumpage fee" is too low (as lumber companies source many of the forests they manage from the federal government instead of having to buy the land outright as they do in the USA).

Hmmmmmmm.

One set of rules for Bush Corporations..one set for everyone else. Hypocrites - hypocrites - hypocrites.

[bhunt70]

9. It's really about the mineral rights.

Trees etc (non-annual plantation) fall under normal real property and land laws while minerals are treated differently.

[applegrove]

12. Which is funny since trees are renewable and minerals are not.

[bhunt70]

10. It's really about the mineral rights.

Trees etc (non-annual plantation) fall under normal real property and land laws while minerals are treated differently.

[yurbud]

8. how about split the profits for whatever you take out of public land?

half to whoever digs it out, and half to the owners of the land, us.

[StopRoy]

13. You only get the discount price

If you promise to ruin the land. If you don't destroy the local environment within 5 years, you have to pay full price.

Note: The above is not true, but in a fully Republican world, it would be.

[NVMojo]

14. find out more about why Nevada's gold mines supported Bush &

not Kerry! The mining fees! And they whip the profit off out of the country....

[shanti]

16. payback is a motherfucker....

and this is what they are doing.

[depakid]

18. Excellent issue- but this isn't news

Clinton & the Dems had their chance to take this on in a variety of ways- and they never seriously tried.

[oregonindy]

19. this is a demopublican and republicrat issue....sad to not lay another

thing on the shrub.

[depakid]

21. They were too afraid to lose all those votes out in

Eastern Oregon and Idaho!

Clinton did the exact same thing with the BLM grazing policies- pandered to a bunch of far right welfare cowboy's who'd never voted Dem a day in their lives.