Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 10, 2017 03:21PM

You'll recall our debate over what motivated the president's decision to reduce the size of the national museums. Since Obama had not changed the cattle grazing rights or Native American activities, it didn't seem likely that President Trump was trying to increase popular access to the sites. The more probable explanation to some of us was that the decision would open up huge areas for mining and mineral companies as well as oil and gas exploitation.

The following articles indicate that the mineral extraction interpretation may be correct. In the WaPo article is a map showing how the new boundaries of the Bears Ears monument line up almost exactly with known uranium deposits as well as opening up large tracts of coal. The articles also report that Trump Administration officials were the target of significant lobbying efforts by the uranium industry.

What isn't clear is why the Utah politicians fell in line so easily. It could be the usual anti-government sentiment or perhaps lobbying and campaign donations or a combination of both.



With map:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/uranium-firm-urged-trump-officials-to-shrink-bears-ears-national-monument/2017/12/08/2eea39b6-dc31-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.b1736c63f998



Other reports:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-uranium-firm-bears-ears-national-monument-20171208-story.html

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5377401&itype=CMSID

http://www.mining.com/web/utah-claims-bears-ears-monument-will-kill-uranium-industry/

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: December 10, 2017 03:33PM

What's the point of a quid, without pro quo?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 10, 2017 03:34PM

An apt observation made with your usual humor!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 10, 2017 04:50PM

The administration and Utah's Congressional delegation highly values fossils.

Or at least fossil fuels.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SL Cabbie ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 02:25AM

Tom is a long=time Tribune writer I like and respect, and I can see here he bends over backwards to bring criticism of both sides to the table...

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2017/12/08/tom-wharton-utah-politicians-would-rather-fight-than-manage-public-lands/#comment-3654890219

I got my licks in on the comments section when a trollish sort showed up; I learned how to geld and hogtie 'em here in the wild early days of RFM...

Anyone who can't the see the fingerprints of multi-national organized crime with this issue needs to learn more about human evil, seriously.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: StillAnon ( )
Date: December 10, 2017 04:10PM

"What isn't clear is why the Utah politicians fell in line so easily. "

Big Oil is one of the top "donors" to Utah politicians. They'd sell their grandmother for a buck. Plus, Mormonism is rooted in an almost anarchically view of the Federal Government.

Google the recent Washington Post article regarding mormons and Cliven Bund?? (RfM won't let me post the link because it contains the name of a banned word. But Cliven has the same last name of the mormon serial killer, Ted.

"Radical mormonism" is a real thing and closer to the Joe Smith/BY brand of LDS that the church would care to admit.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Curelom Joe ( )
Date: December 10, 2017 04:31PM

Bring Bears Ears back to full size on Inauguration Day in 2021--and then double the size to show who the new sheriff is. That's my recommendation.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phazer ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 09:46AM

Oh,because having almost 8 million acres of land locked away is being a good and lazy steward of resources and doesn't encourage increasing exports to line pockets of the Federal Gov. Too much of the west is held in Federal hands already.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 03:06PM

Your premise is false.
It wasn't "locked away."

It was accessible to every single American.

It *wasn't* accessible to special interest companies who want to line their own pockets and destroy the land and drive all the rest of us off of it.

Strip-mining and drilling aren't the only uses for land, you know.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phazer ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 03:33PM

What I mean by locked away is the land isn't sold to private citizen or business and no leasing is happening for the land to be used.


I'm not under a spell that all of the land is going to leased off to strip mines. Whatever, deal some company makes will help this country rather than just sitting on it.


Some land is used for grazing, some for small drilling oufits, other areas might go to mineral extraction.

A lot of policy and trade protections will need to happen if the mineral extraction industry is going to reboot. There was one mine in U.S. that is still in bankruptcy since 2015. A min that was operated in California. So you can only imagine the state and federal regulation the company had to combat against.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Richard the Bad ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 03:57PM

Even with the current monument boundaries, approximately 90% of federal land is open to oil and gas leasing. Not to mention the millions of acres of already leased lands that haven't been developed. And the thousands of approved Applications to drill that haven't been. Your argument is not supported by fact.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2017/07/07/interior-secretary-ryan-zinke-orders-faster-approval-of-oil-and-gas-drilling-on-federal-lands/

http://wilderness.org/open-business-and-not-much-else-analysis-shows-oil-and-gas-leasing-out-whack-blm-lands



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2017 04:02PM by Richard the Bad.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 03:58PM

That is incorrect.

The extraction industries in the US are thriving. They include natural gas, shale, fracking, horizontal drilling, etc. The US is now the world's largest producer of hydrocarbons and is in fact driving down prices through sheer volume.

The extraction industry does not need to "reboot."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: richardthebad (not logged in) ( )
Date: December 10, 2017 05:16PM

Of course it has to do with energy extraction. I've dealt with this company in Wyoming and they tend to play hardball.

And for some reason, every uranium company I've dealt with here has a parent company from Canada or Australia. But it's even more complicated, Uranium One is a Canadian company which is owned by the infamous Russian company. Funny how this is working out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: kentish ( )
Date: December 10, 2017 06:05PM

Clinton and Obama created them...reason enough to slash them for Trump.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Free Man ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 01:36AM

Alot of people on here that don't like oil. What do you drive?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 02:09AM

I'll try a nuanced argument. We'll see if you can follow it.

I like oil a lot, or at least consider it the only realistic source of energy for most of the world for the foreseeable future. I don't like coal, particularly Chinese coal, which is among the dirtiest in the world. I really like China using Middle Eastern oil, which is much cleaner. I worry about nuclear power because most countries are a lot closer to Chernobyl than they are to Japan in terms of control and safety--wait, even in Japan...

I gleefully await the full development of alternative fuels that are much less environmentally destructive than oil and nuclear power. But I recognize that if you plot out the maximum realistic rate of adoption globally, a big improvement is still years in the future. So yes, I like oil better than most of the realistic alternatives right now.

There is, however, another question: where does the oil come from? Given that the Middle East has the largest proven reserves of cheap oil and that fracking and horizontal drilling, more controversially, have opened up sources around the globe, I don't see any reason to destroy some of the most spectacular scenery in the world, nor to devastate lands that are important to Native Americans, nor to corrupt one of the best fossil records in the world. So do you see the difference between liking oil in general and not liking it in the Utah national monuments?

Then there is also the nuclear question. Do I think we should destroy the national monuments given that uranium is available in many parts of the world at virtually the same price as in Utah? Do I like opening up the Utah lands for a Canadian uranium company that Russian interests bought in 2013 and that is now under investigation by the (Republican-led) House Intelligence Committee? Not so much.

I don't think the Trump administration should be destroying some of the most valuable lands in the United States to enrich Russian oligarchs. In fact, I wonder why an American government would want to shift US wealth to Russians.

How about you, Free Man? Do you like Russian uranium interests with close ties to Vladimir Putin?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SL Cabbie ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 02:19AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 10:13AM

A lot of people on here that don't like gods. What do you worship ?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phazer ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 09:52AM

I'd like to see the mineral extraction industry in America move from near 0 to 20%. Why should China be the 97% exporter of these necessary raw materials?

If we can't do it inexpensively then the companies will go out of business but the industry should be rebooted.

West Virginia state GDP growth is #1 in the entire country and Texas is #2. Energy prices and demand has really helped along with new national priorities and policy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 01:58PM

"If we can't do it inexpensively then the companies will go out of business but the industry should be rebooted."

Phazer, you realized that the two ideas in that sentence are contradictory?

The reason China accounts for 97% of the global trade is because the country prices its output below its production cost and drives everyone out of business. Do you really want the United States to compete against that? We should insist on losing more money on the industry than China does, provide even greater subsidies to the rest of the world at our expense? No. The winning strategy is to continue buying China's discounted output until its reserves are exhausted, then we can expand our output at higher prices and make a profit.

There should be no "reboot," as you call it. The US should produce things in which it has a competitive advantage, and that is not rare earth metals.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phazer ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 02:24PM

I should of added, that revising the burdensome regulations that added cost and unproductivity can be re-examined to reboot it.

Tariffs can help protect the industry too.


I don't think we will be just sitting on these mineral deposits anymore. I hope it does reboot.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 02:49PM

Your understanding of economics is stunningly naive.

Economics dictates that if something is uneconomic to produce, you shouldn't produce it. If China is selling something more cheaply than the US can, the US should buy and not sell.

The notion of imposing tariffs on imports is crazy. If you did that, you would decrease American welfare in general and also increase the price of US high technology goods--which the US DOES produce with a substantial competitive advantage--and thereby hurt American industry, American jobs, American shareholders, and government tax revenues.

The proposition, which you keep repeating, that it is a waste to have resources sitting in the ground and not exploited is fatuous in the extreme. If the cost of extracting those resources is higher than the price at which they can be sold, they should be left in the ground. That is the logical policy.

Digging for the sake of digging is silly. Yet you keep stating that the country should ignore the economics of coal and rare earths and dig, dig, dig.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phazer ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 03:40PM

Coal digging has increased with exports up 60%. West Virginia GDP is #1 in the country. It wasn't just coal though, natural gas was part of that GDP growth.

Lori there are a lot of dirty tricks in the world market.

U.S. has been artificially snubbed for decades.

When new trade agreements are in place the economy will be nothing like you though it was for the last 10 years.

It can explode and flourish and politicians and leaders would let it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 03:53PM

You just switched topics.

You raised "rare earths," I addressed it. Rather than reply to that, you now act as if we were talking about hydrocarbons. We were not.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: [|] ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 03:56PM

>West Virginia GDP is #1 in the country.

Not even close.
In 2016 it was 40th
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

You want to use per capita GDP?
West Virginia was 48th
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita

Numbers for 2017 are not yet available obviously.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: mikemitchell ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 10:06AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: slcdweller ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 10:09AM

Let's face it - coal is done. With the amount of oil production from the Bakken and Permian formations, natural gas will soon be the go-to for power generation. The USA is in for a decade or so of global energy production dominance.

I'm glad they shrunk the Clinton/Obama land-grab. I've spent a bunch of time down there and its a whole lot of nothing, they were just punishing Utah for not voting for the Democrats.

Kinda like how Trump is sticking it to NY and CA with the tax reform.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phazer ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 10:22AM

Natural Gas will become a very big export for the U.S.


Coal is far from dead. I imagine U.S. imports of Coal may decrease or reamin similar to the decreased imports in 2017.
https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t18p01p1.pdf
Dramatic shift in Australia and Mexico coal imports.


#Business News July 28, 2017 / 12:15 AM / 4 months ago
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports/u-s-coal-exports-soar-in-boost-to-trump-energy-agenda-data-shows-idUSKBN1AD0DU

"WASHINGTON/LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. coal exports have jumped more than 60 percent this year due to soaring demand from Europe and Asia, according to a Reuters review of government data...

"The previously unpublished figures provided to Reuters by the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed exports of the fuel from January through May totaled 36.79 million tons, up 60.3 percent from 22.94 million tons in the same period in 2016"


https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=67&t=2
"In 2016, the United States imported the most coal from Colombia—about 7.89 million short tons. This was about 80% of total U.S. coal imports of about 9.85 million short tons in 2016. Canada was the second-largest source of U.S. coal imports in 2016—about 1.08 million short tons or about (approximately 11% of total U.S. coal imports). The rest of U.S. coal imports in 2016 came from 13 other countries."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: slcdweller ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 10:32AM

I say coal is dead for two reasons - no new coal powered plants are being built. Many coal fired plants are already being converted to natural gas.I say coal is dead in the context that as far as burning it to produce power in the USA.

Will it be exported instead?

Entirely possible, its high grade but when you try and compete with the sheer scale of Australia or the low cost of China, its tough.

So sure, there'll be some continued use, probably prolonged now Trump has killed off the war on coal the previous guy was waging but I think its heyday is done.

Footnote:
If Trump permits all the LNG export facilities, watch the massive boom in natural gas. Forget Bitcoin, invest in energy companies.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: 6 iron ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 12:16PM

We, on planet Earth, have to stop coal.

30% on pollution in San Francisco comes from coal burning China.

I live in SW Ontario, and we get massive amounts of air pollution from the US flowing up through Ontario as predominant air comes from the SW to the NE.

In Ontario, we no longer have any coal burning energy plants, zero zilch. But we breath in coal pollution from others. If I remember correctly, there are 1800 coal plants in the US, with only 600 clean burning.

Not only a carbon source, coal contains Mercury, a neurotoxin, and burning coal get Mercury into our environment. Living near a cremation facility also has toxic Mercury pollution, as fillings are burned.

We all breath the air. We eat plants, we eat animals, we drink the water. We have to vote for those that understand that we need to be wise stewards of the environment.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phazer ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 01:16PM

Apparently the Canadian Government feels differently when it comes to keeping their jobs and exporting coal.

Even if all coal plants shut down in Canada and U.S. the rest of the world could give a damn and will continue burning coal.

The smoke gets blown around and eventually makes over to your area.

The war on coal is simply to decrease sources for cheap energy and artificially cutting off a limb on the U.S. economic body.

As much as environmentalist spout off propaganda, oil, coal, and natural gas will be the top energy. Wind and solar is nice but also requires quite a bit of resources to make the components to have "clean" energy. The wind doesn't always. The sun always shines but it doesn't power the world.

Continued improvement is nice but all methods should be used.

I'm sure one volcanic blast has more pollution in it than 1800 coal plants could produce.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Richard the Bad ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 03:26PM

The "war on coal" isn't. The reason coal production is down is because it isn't profitable. This is a direct result of the success of "drill baby drill" which produced cheap natural gas that competed directly with coal. Right now, in the Jonah Natural Gas Field in Western Wyoming, more that 3/4 of the wells drilled during that time have been turned off. They are waiting for the price to come back up. They all drilled themselves out of jobs.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phazer ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 03:48PM

It's like the diamond market.

Fake scarcity and artificial demand to help control the prices they want. But they can't control each country that wants to be competitive and bring home the money from the export.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Richard the Bad ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 04:05PM

This isn't an issue of artificial scarcity, quite the opposite it's one of over supply.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 04:07PM

Exactly. That's why the price has been falling and so many rigs are standing idle.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: [|] ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 04:13PM

And coal is losing market share because it costs more than alternate energy sources because of that natural gas production.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: 6 iron ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 05:28PM

It has to start somewhere, the elimination of coal burning.

Here in Ontario, we've stopped.

Now we are a good example, and can pressure trading partners to do the same.

Every cultural shift takes time.

It's unfortunate that agent Orange south of us is going in opposite directions.

Dinosaurs are extinct!! (My sarcasm meaning that Trump is a dinosaur)

I BREATH YOUR AIR. HAVE SOME EMPATHY.

I work outside. We get warnings of bad air quality days. Hot humid summer days we are warned about bad air quality. When I work outside on those days, I can feel it in my lungs after a couple of days. I find it hard to breathe.

Only an asshat wouldn't care about air quality, water quality...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phazer ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 01:19PM

Yeah, exports will increase for Coal. China for instance has no intention of shutting down their coal producing plants. U.S. and others will gladly mine the coal and sell it to them to satisfy their demand. And why not, coal country has families to feed too.


Natural gas will be a big money maker.

Bitcoin is "worth" a lot but there isn't a good way to dump it into something you really want.

Could it hit $100K ? I suppose it could.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: slcdweller ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 03:17PM

I don't think Bitcoin will hit $100K.

Personal opinion - with its relatively tiny market cap its being pumped up ready for speculators to make a packet on the downside. They missed the run up as futures contracts were only made available today but they're sure as shit not going to miss the drop, and it'll be a big one.

The underlying Blockchain technology has some intriguing applications but Bitcoin itself?

21st century tulip bulbs.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SL Cabbie ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 11:18AM

Also Nobel Prize, Gore, Al...

Hang onto that narcissistic world view and don't think about our grandchildren. I mean that phrase in the Preamble, "Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" is just empty rhetoric, right?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 11:30AM

"Screw our posterity! What have they EVER done for us, the lazy bastards!"
- - Judic West, Duke of Putz



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2017 12:47PM by elderolddog.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: GNPE ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 02:38PM

There is a coal export dock near to Seattle - in B.C., near the U.S. border;

Another facility on the Columbia River is near the end of permitting hurdles.

The largest coal-fired generating plant in Western WA has a agreed to either shut down or convert 'soon'...

We can bet the RRs are supporting exports as much as the mining concerns, and they're Not to be trifeld with either...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2017 02:39PM by GNPE.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phazer ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 02:38PM

From one article in 2012.
https://www.wired.com/2012/05/rare-earth-mining-rises-again/

"China now controls 95 percent of total rare-earth supply. A figurative sneeze on its export policy is all that’s needed to shake global markets, and in 2010 China began restricting rare-earth exports. International prices spiked, reaching near-dizzying levels last summer before crashing in the fall. In the wake of the World Trade Organization case, they’ve perked up again."

"Foreign companies buying rare earths from China must now pay more than twice the rate paid by companies inside China. The tiered pricing encourages companies to move factories and jobs to China, where they can be sure of supply and lower prices. Beyond the extra economic boost for China, this has made it easier for Chinese companies to steal foreign intellectual property. Businessmen and politicians worry that China’s dominance over these 17 elements is a strategic vulnerability, discouraging innovation and threatening national defense."

The article mentioned a company called MolyCorp that was one of few Rare earth mining operations in the United States.

Fast forward to 2015, MolyCorp went into bankruptcy. The mine they were operating was Mountain Pass in California. Then Chinese companies came over to try and gobble it up.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-22/the-distressed-debt-standoff-over-america-s-only-rare-earth-mine



It was Economic Sabotage that forced MolyCorp into bankruptcy

http://www.mining.com/mountain-pass-sells-20-5-million/

"Mountain Pass was the only rare earths mine operating in the United States, before it went bankrupt in 2015 – a victim of low rare earth oxide prices. At the time Molycorp listed $1.7 billion in debt. Through bankruptcy proceedings Molycorp was restructured, allowing it to receive $130 million in debt financing."


"Molycorp then moved Mountain Pass into care and maintenance, while continuing to serve customers through its production facilities in Estonia and China."

"Mountain Pass was expected to be America’s flagship source of rare earths. In 2010 Molycorp sensed an opportunity to capitalize on reduced rare earth oxide exports from China – which supplies about 90 percent of the world's rare earth minerals – which had caused the prices of REOs to spike. When China subsequently relaxed export rules, however, prices fell, leaving Molycorp to pay the bill for a $1.25 billion state-of-the-art processing facility."

"Hit by lower rare earth prices, Molycorp warned it might not have enough money to remain in business."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 02:55PM

So what?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phazer ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 04:01PM

Trade agreements can fix a lot of these problems.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 04:12PM

You miss the point.

If a US company can't compete at market prices, it should go away and the people and other resources should be redeployed to industries in which the US can earn profits--of which there are many. You lament the demise of a company that should have gone bankrupt; you act as if the US would be better off if it kept money-losing companies in business.

You also misunderstand trade agreements. The president's decision to withdraw from the TPP negotations caused an immediate fall in the prices, and stocks, of agricultural firms in the midwest. Why? Because farmers lost access to Chinese and Japanese consumers.

Trump now promises new and better trade agreements. How's that working for you? Seen a lot of new trade agreements yet? Seen new markets opened up for US companies?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Get a clue ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 03:08PM

There are no known deposits of rare earth minerals in Bears Ears or Grand Staircase/Escalante, so changing the status of those places will have absolutely no effect on the rare earth market.

You simply can't mine something that isn't there.

https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mineral-resources/ree.html

Notice how many deposits are in Utah... NONE.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 03:14PM

Rare earth metals is one of his hobby horses. Whether the topic is relevant to the Utah monuments is not important.

His argument is, why let China lose all the money selling rare metals below their production cost? America must assert its right to destroy value, too.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phazer ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 04:00PM

The OP linked to Uranium potential in Bear Ears.


You have to dig a bit to find out if have anything there. It's like oil exploration. They are not always right about where the oil is.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 04:14PM

Uranium is not a rare earth metal.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phazer ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 04:22PM

A large amount of uranium is in rare earths deposits, and may be extracted as a by-product.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Richard the Bad ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 04:30PM

While rare earth deposits MAY contain uranium, they are not proposing mining rare earths in Bears Ears. They are proposing mining uranium. You have a rare knack for getting things exactly backwards.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2017 04:30PM by Richard the Bad.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phazer ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 03:55PM

Then the Lobby company wasted their money or the website isn't up to date with new data...on purpose or the data isn't here.


Or huffington post is BS. [It is sometimes].


Uranium Company Urged Trump To Carve Up Bears Ears, Then He Did
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uraniumco-bears-ears-carve_us_5a2ddd59e4b073789f6ae643

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: [|] ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 04:01PM

Your link is about Uranium not rare earth elements. Do you even read your links? Or do you not even know what rare earth elements are?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 04:16PM

He doesn't know.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phazer ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 04:27PM

A large amount of uranium is in rare earths deposits, and may be extracted as a by-product.

I never said Uranium was a rare earth metal. I was just responding to someone saying there were no known rare earth metals so we shouldn't dig.

Keep up.

We will have to do more testing to see if their are deposits.

Explore.

Who knows when they will start looking.

I'm just glad a reduction occurred.

I look forward to the reduction of 18 other sites in the coming years.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Richard the Bad ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 05:11PM

<<I was just responding to someone saying there were no known rare earth metals so we shouldn't dig.>>

Actually, nobody said that.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: slcdweller ( )
Date: December 11, 2017 04:09PM

It's been a long time since Huffington was any kind of semi-real journalistic enterprise.

All they spout is click bait garbage nowadays.
Pretty much most media outlets are to be honest.

So much badly (if at all) researched garbage reporting I don't even bother reading.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed. Please start another thread and continue the conversation.