3 ms·

>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 pr

>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.

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.