Public land environmental mineral extraction(?).

Not sure what people feel about their aluminum foil for cooking, jewelry for Valentine's Day, the smart phone in your hands or the desk/laptop computers used at home and for work, the batteries for electric cars, on and on and on...
Seems just fine if the mineral extraction is from outside the U.S. the oil is foreign based, and the impact to land compromised is not our problem.
Theodore Roosevelt was an "America First" type Republican President. People love to call him the man for conservation. I differ... He is a man for *American conservation*. His usurping of the Columbian Govt to tear apart a foreign country's land for sake of American economic commerce is historically well established (Panama Canal). I believe he is one of my most favorite Presidents more for his Immigration stance over his American conservation of our lands though certainly value all he's done for *American public lands.

I believe in domestic mineral extraction as well as our importation of foreign materials. I love our public lands and believe in *multi use* public land. In no way does multi use exclude our domestic extraction of the minerals used within the items you and I use daily.
We have entrenched ourselves in one side or the other in our actual intent, be it political lobbying or debates as share shared here. Hunters and Anglers, backpackers and bird watchers, we all work for a living that grants us opportunity to enjoy our leisure activities. Like that Leupold scope? The energy used to travel, be it air, land, water... to reach our favorite hunting and fishing locations? The minerals used to build that Titan, Tundra, Ram, etc. I'm personally thankful for the efforts made to ecologically extract the materials from our own land. I look forward to constant enhancements.

Where do the environmental proponents meet with the domestic extraction proponents to find common ground? Our modern technology has come a long way! For those of us that acknowledge the items used in our daily work lives and actual use in our leisure tools and find an interest in our own extraction vs "not in my country" type mentality, we look for American inginuity to continue our pursuit towards domestic production in as ecologically safe as possible within our multi use land.

The value of my electronics to conduct research at the touch of my fingertips is a testament to extraction at a global level. "Not in my country" is not something I agree with though to each his / her own.

Some interesting reading material that is available via our "internet is always right" library. I'm interested in what projects and actions are in the works or are used. I think the collaboration efforts for our timber industry is great! Would like to see Stewardship programs continue on the mineral level. American job opportunities increase and our own responsibility to preserve our land for future generations to enjoy. Onpoint and others, nitpick away... You too might become a genius.

http://www.miningfacts.org/Environment/How-can-mining-become-more-environmentally-sustainable/

This .gov link has TONS of great information and links to value... Just scratching the surface and enjoying the research within.

https://minerals.usgs.gov/science/minerals-environment.html

Thanks for thinking of me, Sytes - glad I hold such high regard in your world.
But don't think I'll take the bait. For now, I've had enough of internet intellectual adventure with like minded individuals - for now........

But the genius within may flourish, onpoint...
It is always bait to those seeking bait. To others, it involves mutual appreciation for discussion involved within our public lands. Especially for those of us open to further/advance multi use.

Good post Sytes.

A person can be for more extraction where appropriate and more protection in other places where appropriate.
Sometimes extraction and environmental protection go hand in hand.

How many Montanans know that nearly 1100 Montanans are paid the highest wages in the state - an average 126k/yr to mine the metals that allow vehicle emissions to comply with the Clean Air Act?

In southern Indiana, some of the public land became so because it was mined. Reclaimed and non-reclaimed ground became state fish and wildlife areas.

1_pointer said:

In southern Indiana, some of the public land became so because it was mined. Reclaimed and non-reclaimed ground became state fish and wildlife areas.

Click to expand...

They key is to keep all pieces of the regulatory framework that have been put in place to ensure no harm is done to the land after the mining occurs.

If we're being honest, rolling back the very regulations that mandated the reclamation that ave southern Indiana these WMA's is how we lose more land. I support multiple use of public lands, but more so, I support regulations that level the playing field so wildlife and recreation interests have equal standing on how that land gets managed.

This OP reminds me of the recent hunting celebrity folks giving the hunter version of Rodney King's "Can't we all just get along?"

Maybe that is not how you meant to present it, but that is a pretty stiff blade you are using to carve the vested citizens into two categories; 1) in favor of extraction as determined by some of the industry groups you cited or 2) "not in my back yard" NIMBYs.

Ignoring the many nuances in between is superficial, is compliant with the current binary political dysfunction, and probably excludes where 99% of hunters and Hunt Talk forum members are in their perspectives on this issue. To imply that somehow advocating for industry to do extract natural resouces without socializing the costs is "NIMBY-ism" is a pretty shallow assertion.

I'm all in favor of extraction. I also advocate that I don't want the antelope of the Red Desert (insert other wildlife/wildlands here) to be a the price paid so a small segment of the economy and shareholders of energy companies (my largest portfolio segment) can benefit while future generations only get to see the Red Desert as an industrial complex.

I would rather that it be done like the Stillwater mine referred to here in Montana. They get high marks from all sides. They have signed MOUs with conservation and environmental groups to work with them on any proposed expansions or changes to their operating plans. They are making money. They have hardly any litigation costs. People see them as a good neighbor.

Unfortunately, those who want to change clean air, clean water, and other environmental standards don't want to do so for the purposes of improving our air, water, land quality, or to be good neighbors. They want to do it so they can socialize the costs of doing business and they view their political donations and lobbying efforts as the investment to provide those returns.

To imply, or outright say, that those who want extraction done in a sustainable manner are somehow NIMBYs deserves pushback.

Ben Lamb said:

They key is to keep all pieces of the regulatory framework that have been put in place to ensure no harm is done to the land after the mining occurs.

If we're being honest, rolling back the very regulations that mandated the reclamation that ave southern Indiana these WMA's is how we lose more land. I support multiple use of public lands, but more so, I support regulations that level the playing field so wildlife and recreation interests have equal standing on how that land gets managed.

Click to expand...

Most of the ground I grew up hunting on was never reclaimed. It was mined well before reclamation was practiced. Easy to see where the draglines worked, the pits they made, and the ridge after ridge of spoils.

Not arguing against reclamation regulations...

Big Fin said:

This OP reminds me of the recent hunting celebrity folks giving the hunter version of Rodney King's "Can't we all just get along?"

Maybe that is not how you meant to present it, but that is a pretty stiff blade you are using to carve the vested citizens into two categories; 1) in favor of extraction as determined by some of the industry groups you cited or 2) "not in my back yard" NIMBYs.

Ignoring the many nuances in between is superficial, is compliant with the current binary political dysfunction, and probably excludes where 99% of hunters and Hunt Talk forum members are in their perspectives on this issue. To imply that somehow advocating for industry to do extract natural resouces without socializing the costs is "NIMBY-ism" is a pretty shallow assertion.

I'm all in favor of extraction. I also advocate that I don't want the antelope of the Red Desert (insert other wildlife/wildlands here) to be a the price paid so a small segment of the economy and shareholders of energy companies (my largest portfolio segment) can benefit while future generations only get to see the Red Desert as an industrial complex.

I would rather that it be done like the Stillwater mine referred to here in Montana. They get high marks from all sides. They have signed MOUs with conservation and environmental groups to work with them on any proposed expansions or changes to their operating plans. They are making money. They have hardly any litigation costs. People see them as a good neighbor.

Unfortunately, those who want to change clean air, clean water, and other environmental standards don't want to do so for the purposes of improving our air, water, land quality, or to be good neighbors. They want to do it so they can socialize the costs of doing business and they view their political donations and lobbying efforts as the investment to provide those returns.

To imply, or outright say, that those who want extraction done in a sustainable manner are somehow NIMBYs deserves pushback.

Click to expand...

^^^ me too.

To bisect the population into contrasting groups, one supporting and realizing all benefits of "multi-use" of public lands for resources extraction concurrent with recreational use versus another described as hypocritical "not in my country" environmental radicals seemingly ignorant of advancing technological reclamation remedies ... seems narrow and sanctimoniously preachy to me. To garnish the assertion with ties to the Teddy Roosevelt legacy is a contrived stretch.

The OP shares a perspective that we need to place more focus on HOW to make MULTI USE lands work as best possible. American Jobs... American families would love to get to work with decent pay and benefits... American Hunters and Anglers would like to see that happen while preserving our multi use land as best possible.

Instead American Hunters and Anglers are faced with the two extremes - my way or no way.

Big Fin said:

I would rather that it be done like the Stillwater mine referred to here in Montana. They get high marks from all sides. They have signed MOUs with conservation and environmental groups to work with them on any proposed expansions or changes to their operating plans. They are making money. They have hardly any litigation costs. People see them as a good neighbor.

Click to expand...

Sytes said:

Where do the environmental proponents meet with the domestic extraction proponents to find common ground? Our modern technology has come a long way! For those of us that acknowledge the items used in our daily work lives and actual use in our leisure tools and find an interest in our own extraction vs "not in my country" type mentality, we look for American inginuity to continue our pursuit towards domestic production in as ecologically safe as possible within our multi use land.

Click to expand...

Randy... seems we're saying relatively the same thing. This is a "Can't we all get along?" setting, to use your selection of Rodney King's quote.

I believe those outside this are, as you refer --- "NIMBYs". Not heard that before though okay. Works for me. I believe you misunderstood my post orrr, maybe I was not clear enough. Hopefully placing an OP quote along side yours better helps reduce this misunderstanding. Your call to believe as you desire.
I added my own perspective to share why I do not value "NIMBYs" and how they go about this under the color of our great Theodore Roosevelt. Meanwhile avoiding his own venture to enhance the industrial transit of commerce import/export. *Not on our land*. I suppose the same as, "Not in my backyard".

I've heard of Stillwater and picked up some simple understanding of this. I think this is a fantastic role model for current/future operations and eco friendly. It was done as a means to reduce litigation along it's path to meet shareholder expectations. The "Good Neighbor Agreement" of 1998.

For those interested: http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=books_reports_studies

The overall conclusion and recommendation emerging from this study is that GNAs are,
in fact, a process worth pursuing in the right circumstances. Those circumstances are
varied, but at a minimum, require a company with the potential to address community
concerns while maintaining economic viability, and a community group with sufficient
leverage, resources and skill to move through the often long process. Five specific
findings are offered:

Click to expand...

You can read the five specific findings - a bit more than I wanted to quote. This gives some reasonable reflection on "Good Neighbor Agreements"

Overall, thanks for sharing your thoughts, Randy. I value actual information versus Mark type hype within.

Mining Reclamation has significant benefits. Multi use was worked. Extraction took place and reclaimed for recreational use.

A bit of good history can be shared via this site: http://www.reclamationcolorado.com/history/

The AML is taxpayers bailing out bad actors who abandoned their obligation to restore. It's a good program, but reinforces the idea that these companies will not do the right thing unless compelled or bailed out by the taxpayers, no?

Ben, what's the AML? I'm not familiar though as with many things, I dig to learn more. That relate to the Colorado reclamation?

AML = abandoned mine land reclamation program.

The pics above in Colorado were a result of a government reclamation project. In other words the profits were privatized, while the expenses were socialized.

In theory regulation now would stop this from happening. May have ended up okay, but definitely an example of why people are hesitant to open up lands for mining.

AML = Abandoned Mines Land Act. Probably not the correct acronym.

Here's some Abandoned Mines project shots I took of the Gas Hills Uranium Mine & Mill. The spot was in operation in the 50's & 60's. My father worked there, and due to lax enforcement of regulations, it cost him his life when the supervisors told him to remove his radiation badge within 1-2 shifts in a week, and the DOE folks turned a blind eye because it was "in the interest of national security" to get the uranium mined and off to be made into weapons grade ore. That kind of develop now, think later, has very real costs associated with it, beyond the federal programs and tax dollars used to clean up the environmental mess.

This project is going on now, and is covering up the scars from 50-60 years ago. While there are pronghorn and a few mule deer that still use this landscape, they don't tend to spend anytime in the old pits or mill sites until the vegetation is well restored. Just wish they'd stop glowing at night.









The last photo is from a spot that used to be a creek, but has dried up. That's Dad's old ford in the bottom of the creek. He said it was about 200 yards from where he left it 55 years prior. The spot above it was an impromptu mobile home court my Grandfather made by stealing a company dozer and front end loader to clear the sage brush. It was, like most things grandpa did, not permitted by the BLM, nor do I think they ever thought of asking permission to do so.

The $1,000,000 paid by my mine in AML fees last year would disagree with whole socialized expense part. Since this mine opened its owners have paid close to $42 million into that fund to pay for irresponsible operators. All while never leaving so much as one square inch of disturbed ground for taxpayers to pay for reclaiming.

mulecreek said:

The $1,000,000 paid by my mine in AML fees last year would disagree with whole socialized expense part. Since this mine opened its owners have paid close to $42 million into that fund to pay for irresponsible operators. All while never leaving so much as one square inch of disturbed ground for taxpayers to pay for reclaiming.

Click to expand...

For every company like yours, there seems to be a dozen who want to run away. Just like with orphaned wells, etc - when we incentivize walking away rather than being a good partner, people get understandably upset with the industry. Glad to see your company shouldering it's duty.

With modern bonding requirements I don’t know how any taxpayer could be left paying for anything. I can tell you the only thing that bond payment and collateral requirements incentivizes is getting your reclamation done. Quickly!

It does appear as though this is not a burden on taxpayers.
https://revenuedata.doi.gov/how-it-works/aml-reclamation-program/

Ben, I don't believe I've ever heard your father's history. It certainly explains your passion! I'm saddened to hear how he passed in an age of loose environmental regulations. I have a friend who is with MSHA and his view (over 20 years) the safety aspects are a world of difference from the past. Not that it provides any solace though maybe (as I imagine you're aware) it provides a future learned from the past.
I've always valued your thoughts. Disagree? Heh, ya... Sometimes though appreciate your manner of sharing your position. Thanks.