Leave it to the Bush administration to seek out everygrandfather law and whore it out! \only you can prevent mineral disease.

poor poor judgement with the intersting tag
/and my stuff can't penetrate the mod's sieve

Well duh, I could have told you that. And every time anyone tries to change the law it comes to nothing because so many representatives in important committees have their hands in mining pockets.

So why doesn't the local community save up a few thousand dollars...... buy up all the land around this possible mining area..... and leave it as is...

.... If they try to mine then you just sue them for destroying the local ecosystem.

It's simple. If companies can't buy cheap land then the terrorists win. Hey look over there, it's Elvis!

The reason for selling land so cheep is to entice companies to invest the capital needed to develop a mine and extract the minerals.

Or should we just ignore how American companies are having to pay Moly surcharges on steel due to there being a shortage of molybdenum?

Minireally?

Lets see, this has been going on since the late 19th century, but hey it's all Bush's fault.

Yet another reason to make sunset clauses on bills mandatory.

MrNeutron:

The reason for selling land so cheep is to entice companies to invest the capital needed to develop a mine and extract the minerals.

Or should we just ignore how American companies are having to pay Moly surcharges on steel due to there being a shortage of molybdenum?

If there's money to be made in mining it, I'm sure the companies will pay fair market to develop it...

This is akin to giving oil companies tax breaks to develop new wells...

This is un-mine-real.

/nothin'

Barrick Gold got one of the bigger giveaways under this law

So which Corporate Welfare Queens are lining up at the trough this time?

Ah, here we go:

"They could well afford it. In the final days of the Bush (Senior) administration, the Interior Department made an extraordinary but little noticed change in procedures under the 1872 Mining Law, the gold rush-era act that permitted those whiskered small-time prospectors with their tin pans and mules to stake claims on their tiny plots. The department initiated an expedited procedure for mining companies that allowed Barrick to swiftly lay claim to the largest gold find in America. In the terminology of the law, Barrick could perfect its patent on the estimated $10 billion in ore for which Barrick paid the U.S. Treasury a little under $ 10,000. Eureka!"

NeverSaidThat:

So why doesn't the local community save up a few thousand dollars...... buy up all the land around this possible mining area..... and leave it as is...

.... If they try to mine then you just sue them for destroying the local ecosystem.


I believe that you have to actively work the land in order to get this kind of lease. In other words, you would have to put a mine on the land, and operate it. At least that's the way it was explained to me a decade ago by a real-estate attorney. The locals couldn't just squat on it.

How about this question...

Can we (right, left, center and out on the edge) all agree that some of the revenue that is sorely needed by the federal government for everything from social programs, military funding, education, etc could be raised by increasing the fees this land sells for, even if the increases were moderate?

If so, this might be one issue we could all work on together to make things in this country a little better.

/One down - an estimated eleventy million, four hundred thousand and six to go.

Minereal...

...as opposed to minefake?

whorehopper....
I believe that you have to actively work the land in order to get this kind of lease. In other words, you would have to put a mine on the land, and operate it. At least that's the way it was explained to me a decade ago by a real-estate attorney. The locals couldn't just squat on it.

Ok... so couldn't the locals pull off something equal to Schindler?

ie: Have a mine but don't really mine all that much? Or say they're using land for the "valuable tinder" that they are selling to Boy Scouts all across the USA!

It also states that companies typically spend $10,000+ per acre to prove it has mining potential. It's not like someone can walk in to Wal-Mart and purchase 300 acres.

Ok.....why are my posts being deleted? That makes 2. Neither were offensive.

Somewhere, a Russian oligarch is nodding approvingly

100proof - Did you perhaps negatively mention one of the mods in passing? That's a sure cause for deletionality. Or even bannination. Remember: No one likes to have their authority questioned. Evar.

/Not an authority on authority, but I play one on Fark.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos Seymour

If the land is worth developing, then Capitalists should have to pay the owners (that's you and me and every other American) fair market value. Charging less is Socialism.

*sigh* With any other administration, I'd be outraged. With this one, I just breathe a sigh of relief that the corruption doesn't involve human torture and\or the raping of young boys.

It's all a matter of perspective, ya know?

MrNeutron: The reason for selling land so cheep is to entice companies to invest the capital needed to develop a mine and extract the minerals.

The free market will take care of that. I don't particularly feel like subsidizing someone's poor business model.

If they aren't able to get investors and turn a profit off of their mining operation, then there's no need for the mine. If it's a profitable venture, they'll find the investors.

Heh heh. Crested Butte

I think the important thing here is that the Government has less land because of the law. And that's a Good Thing.

The law makes the land easily affordable, and this easily exploitable by companies...thus ensuring the government doesn't reposess it.

geez.. this makes me want to start a development company... er.. umm.. mining company.

I find it interesting that they site the "Bush Administration." Like he was alive in the 1800s and signed the bill. What a bunch of whiners. Fark it. Mine the whole planet. No one protested all the oil wells in the gulf. No one got pissed when everyone dug up the ground and shiat all over everything in California for gold. Bunch of pissants.

Every Johnny-come-lately is so envious that they didn't think of this that don't want anyone else profiting on it. How many of you spoiled farkers own anything made of steel? Anything you own run on petrolium?? How about anything made of PLASTIC???

You know, over 65% of our oil production goes to petro chemicals, like say, that freakin' plastic bag you just carried out of the store with the nasty music? cd and plastic jewell case and plastic wrapper that you can never get off in one piece. Oh FARK!!!

Just take it home and put it in that plastic encased cd player you own, and those damn plastic speakers, and those plastic . . . . . . .

FARK IT~!!!

Bunch of spoiled rotten biatches, all of you.

Peace,
NCtim (livin-wit-wood)

minereal-enriched land

Unless the "minereal" involved is chicken manure, this makes no sense.

-Teh grammer polise

Hey, isn't this the same administration that has slapped tarriffs on Canadian softwood lumber because Canada's stumpage fees "unfairly subsidize the industry". I hope Canada sticks a hefty tarriff on any U.S. minerals or products made with those minerals.

*cough* facetious *cough*

Funny how the only Welfare that Republicans approve of is Corporate Welfare.

John Leshy, who approved 68 of those patents as the Interior Department's top lawyer during the Clinton administration, said the law requires the government to give land away needlessly.


Does this not make sense to anyone else? If this asshat thinks it's a give-away, why did he approve any, let alone 68, patents? And to then become an opponent of the very policy he administered? WTF?

Disinfo.com has something on this already. :P

basscheez: Does this not make sense to anyone else?


If this asshat thinks it's a give-away, why did he approve any, let alone 68, patents?

Because "the law requires the government to give land away needlessly."

And to then become an opponent of the very policy he administered? WTF?

I see no problem with this logicaly. There are plenty of public officials who have to do things they oppose. Many speak out about it.

What's with all teh sumbitters who cant sepll these days?

We used to say of prospectors, they are one foot from a million dollars or a million feet from a buck.
Whenever anyone takes the time to study the minimg laws they realize that they are the best deal this nation has. If we had to pay a salary to all the self employed prospectors it would cost far more than any loss we might have suffered by selling the land cheap. At any rate, certain strategic minerals are reserved from claiming, possibly why we don't have a supply.
Go ahead and change the law and whistle for your minerals.

For those of you who obviously don't know, the 1872 law is one of the most successful pro-business laws in US history.

And while I'm sure that many of you positively wince at anything that is pro-business, this law is one of the reasons the US is an economic powerhouse today. Mining stimulates every other economic sector of the economy. A country that actively mines, thrives. 3/4ths of our standard of living is indirectly because of mining.

To the specifics of the law, it not only states that anyone can seek mineral rights anywhere, including on other people's private property; but it also has a brilliant "use it or lose it" clause. Unless you improve that mine each and every year to a given dollar value, you lose your right to that claim. This kills frivolous claims.

That UIOLI clause should be applied to a LOT more laws than just for mining. Take copyright law, for example.

The music companies have hundreds of thousands of titles and tracks of music that they neither market or allow others to market. That is anti-free market. If there was a UIOLI clause in copyright law, then 90% of all copyrighted music would be either for retail sale or public domain in a few years. Somebody, anybody, everybody, could sell it and make a profit. The music buyer could get it from someone. Much of music piracy would be undercut, just because consumers *could* get it legally.

And that is the very nature of the mining law. NOBODY should be allowed to sit on a *precious* resource, just because they don't feel like developing it, when there are those that want to develop it. And you just can't put a mine anywhere. 99.5% of America can't have a mine, for the best of all reasons: nothing there to mine.

Since 1872, the government has made the wise choice that it is better that the country thrive economically, the people be encouraged to help the country thrive economically, and that nobody has a right to *greedily* say "nobody can use it, just because I don't feel like letting anybody use it."

well as long as mining stimulates every other economic sector of the economy then our economic base is covered. Now can we talk about the fact that these lands are being sold to vacation resort developers and Ski Lift proponants.

/your legalize wants Substance

Whammer

That sounds good, but didnt the article say that the govt cant say anything once they've sold it? So either what you say is true, and it has to be developed. Or sites have been purchased and then not mined as per what the article said.

It doesnt phase me eitherway. Im Australian, and I think the feeling here is "govt owns all valuable minerals." kinda cynical about the results of valuables being found on property (though iirc its just baseless fear, the farmers who found methane under their properties made a pretty penny.). Course, there is also the feeling of "if you find a fossil on your property, plough it under or make sure it isnt traced back to your place". Not only will will you be shutdown to preserve history, but not likely well subsidised for it. =(

I didn't think the gubmint sold anything for less than 35 million.