4 ms·

>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 essen

>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.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
>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.
- danboarder 3y ago
  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.
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    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.
    - tastyfreeze 3y ago
      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.
    - jandrewrogers 3y ago
      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.
  - defrost 3y ago
    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.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      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?
      - defrost 3y ago
        For background, I was in global geophysical exploration for decades and worked on: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/metals-mining 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/cultural-heritage/ https://resolutioncopper.com/land-exchange/ 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-tinto-blasts-46000-year-old-aboriginal-site-to-expand-iron-ore-mine https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/26/rio-t...
- cratermoon 3y ago
  > 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-getting-more-expensive-everything-but-grazing-fees 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff Also harvesting trees in National Forests.
defrost 3y ago
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.
- landemva 3y ago
  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.
  - defrost 3y ago
    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.
cratermoon 3y ago
> 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-getting-more-expensive-everything-but-grazing-fees 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.
- jandrewrogers 3y ago
  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.

boomboomsubban 3y ago

>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.

danboarder 3y ago
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.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  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.
  - tastyfreeze 3y ago
    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.
  - jandrewrogers 3y ago
    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.
- defrost 3y ago
  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.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    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?
    - defrost 3y ago
      For background, I was in global geophysical exploration for decades and worked on: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/metals-mining 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/cultural-heritage/ https://resolutioncopper.com/land-exchange/ 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-tinto-blasts-46000-year-old-aboriginal-site-to-expand-iron-ore-mine https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/26/rio-t...
cratermoon 3y ago
> 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-getting-more-expensive-everything-but-grazing-fees 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff Also harvesting trees in National Forests.

defrost 3y ago

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.

landemva 3y ago
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.
- defrost 3y ago
  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.

cratermoon 3y ago

> 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-getting-more-expensive-everything-but-grazing-fees 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.

jandrewrogers 3y ago
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.