BLACKFOOT
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 247
- Reaction score
- 8
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Heavener oklahoma
- Detector(s) used
- fisher gold bug2
- #1
Thread Owner
Published: August 20, 2007
The General Mining Law of 1872 is among the last statutory survivors of the boisterous era of westward expansion. Essentially unchanged since Ulysses S. Grant signed it into law, it sets the basic rules for mining hard-rock minerals like gold, copper and uranium on public lands. Useful in its day, it is a disaster now. It requires no royalties from the mining companies and contains no environmental safeguards, allowing mines to wreak havoc on water supplies and landscapes.
Representative Nick Rahall, a West Virginia Democrat, has been trying to bring this law into the modern era since 1985. He will try again this fall, and Congress’s Democratic leadership should help him out.
The bill would require mining companies to pay royalties on minerals extracted from federal land, just as coal and oil producers do. It would place sensitive wilderness lands and other “areas of critical environmental concern” off limits to mining, require reclamation afterward and create a fund to clean up the law’s most unattractive legacy — the estimated 500,000 abandoned mine sites that continue to leak cyanide, lead, mercury and other toxic wastes.
Mr. Rahall’s latest effort could not be more timely. An exhaustive report last week from the Environmental Working Group and the Pew Campaign for Responsible Mining noted a dramatic jump in mining claims throughout the West, from 207,540 at the beginning of 2003 to almost 376,500 today. An alarmingly high number have been staked within five miles of 11 major national parks and monuments, including Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona and Death Valley National Park in California.
Much of this increase appears to have been driven by a quintupling in uranium prices over the last several years, which in turn is driven by a renewed interest in nuclear energy as an alternative to dirtier fuels like coal and increasingly costly fuels like natural gas.
The mining industry has long argued that because it is covered by other environmental laws, like the Clean Water Act, its does not need special safeguards. But it does. The Clean Water Act, for instance, does not cover subsurface water. And of course the companies do not like the idea of paying royalties. Even so, prices are so strong now that some of the big companies are beginning to sense that there is a point at which opposition begins to look ridiculous.
Which leaves one enduring obstacle: Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, whose home state of Nevada depends far more on mining than any other state. Mr. Reid now seems willing to listen, as he should. One can live in the 19th century for only so long.
IT seems to me like any time the word REFORM is used I/WE the PEOPLE LOSE AGAIN..
Blackfoot
The General Mining Law of 1872 is among the last statutory survivors of the boisterous era of westward expansion. Essentially unchanged since Ulysses S. Grant signed it into law, it sets the basic rules for mining hard-rock minerals like gold, copper and uranium on public lands. Useful in its day, it is a disaster now. It requires no royalties from the mining companies and contains no environmental safeguards, allowing mines to wreak havoc on water supplies and landscapes.
Representative Nick Rahall, a West Virginia Democrat, has been trying to bring this law into the modern era since 1985. He will try again this fall, and Congress’s Democratic leadership should help him out.
The bill would require mining companies to pay royalties on minerals extracted from federal land, just as coal and oil producers do. It would place sensitive wilderness lands and other “areas of critical environmental concern” off limits to mining, require reclamation afterward and create a fund to clean up the law’s most unattractive legacy — the estimated 500,000 abandoned mine sites that continue to leak cyanide, lead, mercury and other toxic wastes.
Mr. Rahall’s latest effort could not be more timely. An exhaustive report last week from the Environmental Working Group and the Pew Campaign for Responsible Mining noted a dramatic jump in mining claims throughout the West, from 207,540 at the beginning of 2003 to almost 376,500 today. An alarmingly high number have been staked within five miles of 11 major national parks and monuments, including Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona and Death Valley National Park in California.
Much of this increase appears to have been driven by a quintupling in uranium prices over the last several years, which in turn is driven by a renewed interest in nuclear energy as an alternative to dirtier fuels like coal and increasingly costly fuels like natural gas.
The mining industry has long argued that because it is covered by other environmental laws, like the Clean Water Act, its does not need special safeguards. But it does. The Clean Water Act, for instance, does not cover subsurface water. And of course the companies do not like the idea of paying royalties. Even so, prices are so strong now that some of the big companies are beginning to sense that there is a point at which opposition begins to look ridiculous.
Which leaves one enduring obstacle: Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, whose home state of Nevada depends far more on mining than any other state. Mr. Reid now seems willing to listen, as he should. One can live in the 19th century for only so long.
IT seems to me like any time the word REFORM is used I/WE the PEOPLE LOSE AGAIN..
Blackfoot
