Hardrock miners get the shaft!!!!!

[Mad Machinist]

Hardrock miner's get the shaft!!!!!

http://www.mineweb.com/regions/usa/hardrock-miners-get-shafted-obama-budget/

Plan is to set it up under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 where the revenues generated by the states that mine are subject to royalties that will be divided up among all the states, even those who DO NOT mine anything.

Read it and weep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_Leasing_Act_of_1920

NOT GOOD!!!!!! Let the leeches starve.

It gets worse, much worse. Right now states that have banned fracking and mining are trying to claim that since the minerals on federal land belong to "all the people" then the money should be split up evenly. If states want to ban these things based on the crap science that says these things destroy the environment, then they don't need the "blood money" that comes from drilling and mining.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[rodoconnor]

http://www.mineweb.com/regions/usa/hardrock-miners-get-shafted-obama-budget/

Plan is to set it up under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 where the revenues generated by the states that mine are subject to royalties that will be divided up among all the states, even those who DO NOT mine anything.

Read it and weep.

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOT GOOD!!!!!! Let the leeches starve.

It gets worse, much worse. Right now states that have banned fracking and mining are trying to claim that since the minerals on federal land belong to "all the people" then the money should be split up evenly. If states want to ban these things based on the crap science that says these things destroy the environment, then they don't need the "blood money" that comes from drilling and mining.

A Socialist will show up for dinner with a knife a fork

 

[ratled]

So much for free and open

ratled

 

[winners58]

speak up or no more small miners waver for 10 or less claims
covert federal lands to Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 currently covered by the General Mining Law of 1872.
WHAT?, BULL S^$%$#......

 

[Bejay]

If one studies the reasoning behind FLPMA and the 1955 Mulitple Use Act one can understand that the Acts were a result of the BLM (secretary of Interior) and the USFS (secretary of agriculture) attempting to overcome shortcomings they were having because of fraudulent "claiming".

Now we see an attempt to overcome monetary shortcomings by the agencies....and it is all about the money! The attempt to "change" the mining laws have always maintained savings clauses....for the MEG.

Thanks for the heads up on the new attempt to alter the mining laws. Such notification warrants careful consideration as to how it might be dealt with.

Bejay

 

[Hoser John]

Mo' budget bs than you can shake a stick at. Take my claims so I can lease? They can kiss my lily white m f a . This country is in the toilet and been flushed...sic sic sic -John

 

[Goldwasher]

It would have to pass and it won't

 

[kayakpat]

? That appears to be a older law preventing private individuals and corporations from taking public wealth of its citizens and pocketing. If you didn't have that we would not have access to the land at all ,as rich private individual would have taken it all. I don't understand why you would be mad because if they did not have that there would be nothing left for you and me anyway I was raised to believe freedom doesn't mean your freedom to others property. This is 2014 and everything is owned by someone or some group corporations, I don't know where we could go and do anything if it wasn't for public land. If I got that wrong please tell me how. It protects your claims too, doesn't it?
Nothing in life is free, especially land so why do some people believe they automatically can expect free things from the government or private property owners. If I am thinking wrong on this, don't get mad but please explain to me why. I want to be able to do all kind of activities outdoors too, thank you

 

[kayakpat]

I am sensitive to private property rights, I have thiefs coming on to my property cutting my trees for wood, and tearing up the land with quads even looting my ginsang, and bamboo I have growing. I allow hunting if people ask and promise not to trash it. But you would not believe how many get beligerant because I will not allow them to do what they want, and they think they have a right to the land. Makes me mad as hell. Sorry about the rant,

 

[Clay Diggins]

The public lands were already purchased with the labor, sweat and blood of our ancestors. It was never "free" but it has been bought and paid for by the people. Those lands are Public - not government lands. Congress holds the Public Lands in trust for the people of this nation. If you don't like the way the trustee is handling your estate fire them and hire another (vote out the rat bas*a%ds).

This BLM budget proposal is nearly exactly the same as the ones proposed in 2013 and in 2011. Every two years the executive agencies get to make up a wish list and call it a budget proposal. This time it has even less of a chance of ever being voted on than the last 5 budgets. It really is a non-starter for several reasons.

Keep in mind this is an executive proposal. Only Congress makes laws and only Congress controls the budget. The executive can make suggestions but so can you and just about anybody but a sitting judge. Budget proposals are kind of like opinions, everybody has one.

Rather than getting fighting mad about something that has zero chance of becoming law why not concentrate on actual proposed law bills making their way through Congress. Here's one that could use your support.

We have limited resources. Getting excited and pouring your limited resources into fighting something that isn't even on the Congressional agenda or even in the minds of the public is pretty wasteful. Why not make your own proposal and get public support for it by presenting a more realistic view of mining to the public? Public perception is where the problem is and public perception drives the making of law.

Educate the public.

Heavy Pans

 

[QNCrazy]

So here is the language fo the legislative proposal as it pertains to mining claims.

The second legislative proposal institutes a leasing process under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 for certain minerals—gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper, uranium, and molybdenum—currently covered by the General Mining Law of 1872. After enactment, mining for these metals on Federal lands will be governed by the new leasing process and subject to annual rental payments and a royalty of not less than five percent of gross proceeds. Half of the receipts will be distributed to the States in which the leases are located and the remaining half will be deposited in the Treasury. Existing mining claims will be exempt from the change to a leasing system. The proposal also increases the annual maintenance fees under the General Mining Law of 1872 and eliminates the fee exemption for miners holding ten or fewer mining claims. These changes will discourage speculators from holding claims that they do not intend to develop. Holders of existing mining claims for these minerals could voluntarily convert their claims to leases. The Office of Natural Resources Revenue will collect, account for, and disburse the hardrock royalty receipts.

So existing mining claims would be exempt from the lease program as I read it. However, the small miner with existing claims will be hit hard with the elimination of the of the waiver and increase in maintenance fees and be forced into the lease program if they want to keep mining. Now if I elected to join the lease program with my claim, I would have to pay an annual rental fee of not less than 5% of gross proceeds. Is that the gross proceeds from my claim? If so, I recovered maybe 2/3 oz of gold last year. At todays price, that value is $837, 5% of that is roughly $42. So does that mean it will only cost me $42 to rent my claim. And, how do they know what my gross proceeds are? Do all the other expenses get to be included in the gross proceeds, because my expenses to get the gold outweigh the gold i am getting. So I am taking a loss in this venture as most of us are. This is all hypothetical mind you. I am interested to see others takes on this theory.

Clay is absolutely correct on this, this is only a proposal and not worth getting worked up over.

 

[KevinInColorado]

Sadly "gross proceeds" means money earned from selling your gold BEFORE expenses are considered. Net proceeds would be that amount reduced for expenses.

 

[Bejay]

The public lands were already purchased with the labor, sweat and blood of our ancestors. It was never "free" but it has been bought and paid for by the people. Those lands are Public - not government lands. Congress holds the Public Lands in trust for the people of this nation. If you don't like the way the trustee is handling your estate fire them and hire another (vote out the rat bas*a%ds).

This BLM budget proposal is nearly exactly the same as the ones proposed in 2013 and in 2011. Every two years the executive agencies get to make up a wish list and call it a budget proposal. This time it has even less of a chance of ever being voted on than the last 5 budgets. It really is a non-starter for several reasons.

Keep in mind this is an executive proposal. Only Congress makes laws and only Congress controls the budget. The executive can make suggestions but so can you and just about anybody but a sitting judge. Budget proposals are kind of like opinions, everybody has one.

Rather than getting fighting mad about something that has zero chance of becoming law why not concentrate on actual proposed law bills making their way through Congress. Here's one that could use your support.

We have limited resources. Getting excited and pouring your limited resources into fighting something that isn't even on the Congressional agenda or even in the minds of the public is pretty wasteful. Why not make your own proposal and get public support for it by presenting a more realistic view of mining to the public? Public perception is where the problem is and public perception drives the making of law.

Educate the public.

Heavy Pans

====================================================================================================

Here here on our forefathers and public lands

Read the link......but I am not understanding the last portion, and requiring the BLM to send out further certified notifications for corrections and lessoning their revenue might cause further justification their proposal(s) further changes.......so not sure I am understanding the proposal.

Educating the 18 to 33 year old crowd appears to be difficult as a recent survey shows 70% can not tell you a single Congressman's name for the state in which the person resides.

Bejay

 

[fowledup]

"Winston S. Churchill supposedly once observed that anyone who was not a liberal at 20 years of age had no heart, while anyone who was still a liberal at 40 had no head. If there’s any truth to the observation, one wonders what to make of today’s college students."

 

[Mad Machinist]

From the 1920 Mineral leasing Act:

The Supreme Court further affirmed the president's constitutional power to withdraw public land from use in United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U.S. 459 (1915). . Following these events, Congress enacted the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 which dictated a system of leasing and development for mining interests on federally owned lands.

Anybody wanna guess how much would be removed? And considering the current penchant for bypassing Congress with an executive order when the current joke in chief doesn't get his own way, we get a picture of where this has a better than average chance of going.

More from the Act:
Provisions in the act provide a number of functions:[SUP][3][/SUP]

• Enables entrance onto public lands to explore for minerals with permission of the government.
• Enables drilling and extraction of minerals with authority granted by the government.
• Enables the government to manage the exploitation of leasable minerals.
• Enables the government to receive compensation from the lessee for the privilege of extracting minerals on federal public lands.

And only the gov't can see the benefit of REDUCING revenue and calling it revenue generation. Currently it is over $200 to establish a 20 acre claim. Under this, converting to a mineral lease is $2 an acre. So they cut revenue generation from claim fees by 80% and call this revenue generation?

Read this part and think of how it would effect he small miner if implemented whether through Congress or by Executive Order:
[h=2]Petroleum[edit][/h] Under the Mineral Leasing Act and later amendments, the right to produce federally owned petroleum (oil and natural gas) is secured for ten-year periods by competitive bidding, and goes to the party paying the highest bonus. There are three forms of payment to the government: bonus (an initial payment to the government), rental (an annual payment of $2 per acre), and royalty ( a payment of 1/8 or 12.5% of the gross value of the oil and gas produced).[SUP][7][/SUP]


[h=2]Coal[edit][/h] Under the Mineral Leasing Act as amended and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 as amended, coal leases are initially obtained for a 20-year period but can be terminated in 10 years if the resources are not sufficiently developed. As with petroleum, an initial bonus must be paid to the government at the time the lease is awarded. Annual rental fees for coal are $3 per acre. Royalties are 12.5% of the gross value for surface mined coal and 8% for coal produced from underground mines.

I especially "like" the part about paying the gov't a "bonus" to be able to exercise my right.
[h=2][/h]

 

[Clay Diggins]

====================================================================================================

Here here on our forefathers and public lands

Read the link......but I am not understanding the last portion, and requiring the BLM to send out further certified notifications for corrections and lessoning their revenue might cause further justification their proposal(s) further changes.......so not sure I am understanding the proposal.

Educating the 18 to 33 year old crowd appears to be difficult as a recent survey shows 70% can not tell you a single Congressman's name for the state in which the person resides.

Bejay

The BLM currently sends out 30 day notices. The bill would extend the time to respond to 60 days.

This is important because it's difficult to impossible to reply and raise an administrative challenge within the 30 days. Dealt with this several times in the last year alone.

Heavy Pans

 

[Mad Machinist]

The public lands were already purchased with the labor, sweat and blood of our ancestors. It was never "free" but it has been bought and paid for by the people. Those lands are Public - not government lands. Congress holds the Public Lands in trust for the people of this nation. If you don't like the way the trustee is handling your estate fire them and hire another (vote out the rat bas*a%ds).

This BLM budget proposal is nearly exactly the same as the ones proposed in 2013 and in 2011. Every two years the executive agencies get to make up a wish list and call it a budget proposal. This time it has even less of a chance of ever being voted on than the last 5 budgets. It really is a non-starter for several reasons.

Keep in mind this is an executive proposal. Only Congress makes laws and only Congress controls the budget. The executive can make suggestions but so can you and just about anybody but a sitting judge. Budget proposals are kind of like opinions, everybody has one.

Rather than getting fighting mad about something that has zero chance of becoming law why not concentrate on actual proposed law bills making their way through Congress. Here's one that could use your support.

We have limited resources. Getting excited and pouring your limited resources into fighting something that isn't even on the Congressional agenda or even in the minds of the public is pretty wasteful. Why not make your own proposal and get public support for it by presenting a more realistic view of mining to the public? Public perception is where the problem is and public perception drives the making of law.

Educate the public.

Heavy Pans

Has a better chance than you think because of one reason. Read the post below yours or reread the link. 2.5% royalty on gross revenue goes to the State in with the lease is located. How many States are cashed strapped and complaining about the loss of property taxes from federal ownership of land in that State?

Counties could be missing federal-land payments | Johnson City Press

Cut out PILT because this way the federal budget "looks" reduced and give the States an illusion another source of funding to make up for the loss while doing everything that is possible to make resource recovery impossible. If you think I am off base here read this:

Federal budget would cut revenue for Louisiana | State | The New Orleans Advocate ? New Orleans, Louisiana

Pay close attention to this part where it starts talking about using the money for "broad natural resource, watershed, and conservation benefits". Wanna guess what that means?

 

[Clay Diggins]

Has a better chance than you think because of one reason. Read the post below yours or reread the link. 2.5% royalty on gross revenue goes to the State in with the lease is located. How many States are cashed strapped and complaining about the loss of property taxes from federal ownership of land in that State?

Counties could be missing federal-land payments | Johnson City Press

Cut out PILT because this way the federal budget "looks" reduced and give the States an illusion another source of funding to make up for the loss while doing everything that is possible to make resource recovery impossible. If you think I am off base here read this:

Federal budget would cut revenue for Louisiana | State | The New Orleans Advocate ? New Orleans, Louisiana

Pay close attention to this part where it starts talking about using the money for "broad natural resource, watershed, and conservation benefits". Wanna guess what that means?

You can believe what you wish. History tells us it's just noise. The future may be different than the past but betting on that is not a paying proposition in my experience.

As a practical matter how are you going to fight a 6 year old proposal that has never been put up for a vote or debate? It's just words that have been repeated for several years. Congress has never taken this proposal seriously enough to put it up for debate much less a vote.

Heavy Pans

 

[kayakpat]

clay,, the government isn't a person or individual . you say " gun don't kill people , people kill people" government is the same thing as a gun in bad peoples hands. The government is a constitution defined tool of the people. Do you think all the people can do what they want with public lands. No government equals Anarchy, it is a necessiary evil, or do you think You equal the public? People in government change all the time, but what you are saying is a free for all with all the past people, and the 347 million citizens and all future citizens just taking and doing anything they want to the land because they are all equally the public . I don't like the way things are too, but our constitution gave us ways to change it. Your idea that you can decide for everybody else on what to do with everybody's public land isn't right. Government is not a person or individual it is the constitution, and all of us and who we elect to handle our public domain.

 

[kayakpat]

mad machinist, I think you are saying sell off the public lands to private hand to get property tax. Yes we could do that , but they 99.99999999 per cent of the people , including you would no longer have Any access to the propertys. NONE for no reason. lots of places in the east are like that, no where to do anything except on your own property.