You could argue that this is actually a good. By leveraging a small processing fee per claim (225), and a small annual maintenance fee (165), the system effectively doesn't discriminate against small businesses and even individuals who want to seek their fortune mining the land.
The above fees only address the provisional stake holding, and environmental permits must be acquired before any mining commences. While the requirements to obtain EPA permission could be seen as nullifying any advantages to small business from the low prospecting fees, it's also likely that once a prospector finds minerals they could also obtain partners or funding which would help share the cost of any additional permits required.
While it's true that the state does not benefit financially from mineral extraction in the form of royalties, in many cases states are able to collect taxes from the operations of businesses involved in the mining, processing and sale of minerals, as other commenters point out.
It's conceivable that an additional layer of tariffs in the form of royalties may make mining operations more difficult for small businesses and individuals, undermining (pun intended) the intended benefits of the low barriers to entry for prospecting.
It is also possible to make a connection with how large incumbent companies often lobby for more regulations. While a seeming paradox, this behavior actually helps protect their business by introducing additional barriers to entry that help keep out startups and smaller newcomers. These added costs, while affordable for the largest of companies, are often prohibitively expensive and burdensome for would-be competitors.
This shows a paradox: regulations meant to ensure fair business and collective good can sometimes just cement monopolies.
Agreed! The article would be stronger if it didn't conflate environmental pollution issues (covered by subsequent EPA approvals) and conveniently leave out corporate taxes.
If author thinks royalties should be imposed, make that point! But don't handwave at 'all the bad stuff THEY do' as justification.
> Then, as now, corporations could pull unlimited quantities of minerals from their claims without paying a cent of royalties to the minerals’ actual owner — the American public. This amounts to a subsidy of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, mostly to multinational corporations.
The article would be stronger if it stuck to one issue. Is the problem the clean-up, the fact that there's little environmental oversight when exploring, or the fact that the there should be royalties? They've conflated so many issues and didn't give any specifics. How does exploring negatively affect the environment? What does reclamation look like today rather than the 1800s?
I’m skeptical that individual prospectors have a meaningful part in modern mining, or even really continue to exist in practice. At least as anything more than hobbyists.
This is the kind of thing we can reason about a priori all we want, but the, I suppose, posteriori is very straightforward and knowable: either a population of independent miners benefiting from this rule as you describe exists, or it does not.
I don’t know the answer, and don’t really expect much anyone else here to know. But I’d expect that for those connected to the industry it’s very plain. Without facts though, everything else is hot air.
Anyway, the only way I’ve really heard of startup mining concerns is as private equity scams targeting rich-but-not-wealthy dentist and chamber of commerce types.
You make a compelling point about the role of expertise in discussions like these. While firsthand experience is valuable, it's also important to note that thoughtful discussion can be insightful even without it.
For example, in the context of the U.S. mining history, the 1872 Mining Law was originally designed to encourage individual prospectors to explore the West. Although the mining industry has evolved significantly, the law and its legacy still affect land management and resource extraction policies today. While most of us probably aren't mining industry veterans, discussing these policies can lead to a broader understanding that benefits everyone.
While it's hard to say how many small ball operations benefit from these regulations, a lack of opportunist prospectors does not imply there’s a lack of opportunity. It could be argued that it's crucial to preserve this opportunity for future participants even if presently there may be few.
It's worth mentioning that limiting discussions to experts could stifle diversity of thought. Take the legal system: many landmark decisions, from Brown v. Board of Education to Roe v. Wade, were influenced not just by legal experts but also by public opinion and social movements. If discussions were closed off to 'experts,' we might miss out on valuable perspectives that can drive change.
In short, while it's good to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge and authority to enjoin discussions, it's equally important to remember that these limitations likely apply to everyone, including those attempting to determine who is permitted to participate in conversations.
The federal regulator MSHA has massive power and they visit on schedules (often quarterly, depends on mine size) and unannounced. Anyone can call MSHA hotline and file anonymous report, and MSHA investigates and writes citations. MSHA inspector can literally stop work and send staff home with pay.
> While it's true that the state does not benefit financially from mineral extraction in the form of royalties
Mineral royalties go to feds with a split to States. Wyoming legislature has a flowchart which says in part, "Federal mineral royalties are generally split evenly between the federal government and the state governments of origin ...".
Except you're forgetting about the issue of how to incorporate indigenous decision making on their traditional land. This law doesn't require any consent or permission with local indigenous peoples.
Would that entail the entirety of the United States?
Indigenous people would have had a say, if the claims were located in the nearby Bears Ears National Monument. But it was just next to it, so why would they get a say?
In the States where I have experience, nearby property owners due comment about new/changed permits. And they can and do sue the permitting agencies to stop mine development. It's NIMBY when people stop local sand and gravel pits which forces those buildng materials to be trucked in.
I was forgetting that, I'm sorry for my oversight. You bring up an excellent point!
Considering the original owners of the land is absolutely fundamental, and their genuine input into the environmental assessment process is crucial to creating a sustainable use of the environment.
The original owners don't exist anymore. We probably don't even know who they were. Control of land in America was never an unbroken line of custody by a single tribe. You could consider the most recent non-white owners, but that's a pointless distinction.
Aside from patrick451's comment, what makes you think the original owners can make effective decisions for environmental sustainability today? Their descendants probably can't.
I'm not the first person to own my hatchback, but I'm not going to consult the previous owner if I want to repaint it. Not incorporating indigenous decision making is a valid answer to the question of how to incorporate it.
In the case where the previous owner is still the current owner and they have a treaty with the government to that effect which is being violated by "giving you" the right to strip the car of the engine mirrors and tyres, what then?
We all like a good analogy .. but "previous owner" doesn't hit the mark in many cases of mining in the US, Canada, and Australia (for example) not to mention globally.
> have a treaty with the government to that effect which is being violated by "giving you"
The treaty was violated, but it isn't currently still being violated, is it?
My understanding of international law is that treaties are considered terminated once either party violates them. Does that apply to internal treaties like this too? These usually work within the framework of sovereign nations.
I might be getting way too pedantic with this, but I don't know if that's how it works.
Being pedantic is sometimes a good way to escape the deeper moral questions at play. It may give give us lawyerly oh-and-ah moments but the benefits are illusionary. The underlying problem remains unresolved.
Now, many of the lands that various government (around the world) now own were acquired by force. The original owners lost control of that land and sometimes now live on the sidelines of society in abject conditions.
When there are treaties with indigenous people, then the governments should try to adhere to their spirit (if not the exact letter) as much as feasible. Some consulation and a small profit share for things like mining are the right way to go (when the treaties imply economic rights to the indigenous party).
If we don't follow this, your argument is essentially saying: might is right and rules of the jungle apply. Treaties are agreements. Agreements mostly protect the weak because the stronger party always has the incentive to break the agreement when the terms become inconvenient to them.
Should your bank suddenly simply renege on your fixed rate morgage contract and raise your interest sky high because it just _can_ ? No. Agreements and treaties should have some sanctity.
> then the governments should try to adhere to their spirit (if not the exact letter) as much as feasible.
I guess my question here is, do you think it is feasible for politicians in a democratic government that need to campaign for re-election to uphold a treaty that the voting populace wants to break? If yes, then why were so few of them upheld? If no, then your argument seems to legitimize a lot of the breakages that have happened throughout history.
> If we don't follow this, your argument is essentially saying: might is right and rules of the jungle apply.
I mean, doesn't the law of the jungle apply pretty heavily to international relations? I'm not saying that this rule is the ultimate moral good, but in a de facto sense, doesn't it predict actions better than anything else?
After WWII, the strongest countries (generally those with nukes) wanted a rules based system because the prospect of another war was absolutely terrifying. And so we had a rules based system. But whenever one of those countries has deviated from the rules, they're generally given wide latitude and few consequences, because reigning them in is really tough.
This seems to be the same reason the US argues that the treaty with Cuba for Guantanamo Bay is still in effect (and the US keeps making trivial payments for it every so often as described by the treaty). Cuba doesn't have the strength to actually break the treaty themselves.
Do you have some sort of argument that the law of the jungle doesn't apply?
> I guess my question here is, do you think it is feasible for politicians in a democratic government that need to campaign for re-election to uphold a treaty that the voting populace wants to break?
Interesting point -- it gave me food for thought. At various points of time, many voters were against rights for blacks, against interacial marriage, against desegregation in schools, against rights for gay people etc. On many occasions the courts stepped in and made decisions that the politicians couldn't make on grounds of equity, fairness, human rights etc. So enforcement of some of these treaties should be a matter for the courts.
It would be interesting to read some of these treaties and see exactly what they say. I'm sure the US Supreme court has already ruled on this matter and the issue is considered settled. My guess is that many of these treaties are subject to the will of the executive and legislature. So if they don't want to enforce them, courts beyond a point can't do much. In any case, courts are also political creatures: they sense the mood of the citizens and the various polical power structures. I doubt that indigenous people would be politically or financially important in their calculus. The best case indigenous people can make is fairness. Even then, their claims by now are difficult to prove. They might say a parcel of land was owned by them -- however, history is patchy and often oral. Records are also made by the victors and therefore again stacked against them too.
Generally it's just a good idea to give a local population some compensation for the large externality a mining operation creates, treaty or not. Democracies owe it to their citizens which are their "shareholders". Not investing in the local communities and say they are owed nothing means that future generations are unproductive, have issues with crime, alcohol, drugs and feel disconnected. Invest in people to make them productive and whichever country you live in will be more happy and prosperous. Otherwise the whole country just gets dragged down a bit. It makes sense morally and economically.
> Do you have some sort of argument that the law of the jungle doesn't apply?
Again a good question. In the domain of international relations it is still effectively the law of the jungle. The UN is supposed to protect the rights of the small and weak countries but that is in theory only.
Still, countries are less likely to go invading their smaller neighbours in 2020 than, say, 1820. So you can say the law of the jungle while still generally applicable is no longer as starkly apparent as it once was. Maybe by 2120, the UN will be truly on the side of fairness rather than military/economic might.
However, within countries domestic law is all about using equity and fairness as a principle. The law of the jungle does NOT apply; stronger parties cannot impose their will on the weaker party just because they can. Domestic violence is a crime. Racism/discrimination is a crime. Similarly, dispossesing indigenous people from the lands they enjoyed and casting them aside definitely feels unfair. Allowing them to levy small charges and taxes (subject to overall control and veto by state/federal government) on their traditional lands (for which some historical records or reporting exists) is nothing different to how cities levy all kinds of taxes on businesses operating in their "territory". These taxes should be used to the betterment of the whole community rather than get concentrated in the hands of the powerful elders. Maybe the distribution can be done by the state/federal government. Anyways I'm sure all this has been written about and I'm not adding anything new to the subject.
My understanding is that there isn't really any international body that steps in to rule on (say) treaties made by the USofA and various Indian nations.
History.com states (correctly or not) that "From 1778 to 1871, the United States signed some 368 treaties with various Indigenous people across the North American continent."
Given the article that sourced this thread is about uranium mining in Utah, it might be of interest to recap how that has been handled in the past eighty years:
The dot point summary would be "not great" (understatement), although the Navajo Nation did get saddled with 521 abandoned uranium mine areas most of which require a great deal of clean up and for which (IIRC) they have yet to receive any paper towels.
My understanding is that US case law suggests "Congress has the power to abrogate Indians' treaty rights, ... though we usually insist that Congress clearly express its intent to do so." [1]
If the treaty is violated without clear intent by Congress, it would still be in force, and the affected Tribe or Tribes could sue for performance, possibly even affected persons, if they are deemed to have standing.
I don't quite see the point of a treaty if it terminates once it's violated though?
> If the treaty is violated without clear intent by Congress, it would still be in force, and the affected Tribe or Tribes could sue for performance, possibly even affected persons, if they are deemed to have standing.
This is probably the part I was missing. That seems to be a departure from regular international relations standards, but there's a couple of clauses in the constitution specifically about relations with natives, so it makes sense there's some subtleties to the subject.
While I see the analogy you're trying to make, paul_funyun, I believe comparing the ownership of a hatchback to traditional indigenous lands oversimplifies the situation.
The above fees only address the provisional stake holding, and environmental permits must be acquired before any mining commences. While the requirements to obtain EPA permission could be seen as nullifying any advantages to small business from the low prospecting fees, it's also likely that once a prospector finds minerals they could also obtain partners or funding which would help share the cost of any additional permits required.
While it's true that the state does not benefit financially from mineral extraction in the form of royalties, in many cases states are able to collect taxes from the operations of businesses involved in the mining, processing and sale of minerals, as other commenters point out.
It's conceivable that an additional layer of tariffs in the form of royalties may make mining operations more difficult for small businesses and individuals, undermining (pun intended) the intended benefits of the low barriers to entry for prospecting.
It is also possible to make a connection with how large incumbent companies often lobby for more regulations. While a seeming paradox, this behavior actually helps protect their business by introducing additional barriers to entry that help keep out startups and smaller newcomers. These added costs, while affordable for the largest of companies, are often prohibitively expensive and burdensome for would-be competitors.
This shows a paradox: regulations meant to ensure fair business and collective good can sometimes just cement monopolies.